The Deflection Gambit

The liberal gaslighting over the horrific Charlie Kirk assassination shows they cannot recognize reality.

The most powerful and important story in America today is last week’s assassination of Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA and one of the most influential non-politicians on the right side of the political aisle. Kirk was a powerhouse of fundraising, organizing, youth outreach, and media. He connected with young men like nobody else in American politics – something proven by the massive rightward shift among this demographic in the 2024 presidential election, in which Kirk and his organization were tasked with voter turnout efforts. Kirk was only 31 years old, yet had been on the scene for over a decade; he was essentially part of the furniture of American political discourse. His loss is a significant one for the political right, but an even more profound one for the wife and two children he was so callously ripped away from. We spent a great deal of time talking about the assassination on Episode 9 of the Rational Policy Podcast, recorded the day of the killing, so please check that out for my initial thoughts on Kirk as a man, a rhetorician, and a political figure.

The mourning has only begun. Kirk’s popularity was immense, as was his impact. His memorial service is being held at an NFL stadium, which may very well be packed to the rafters. The president is planning to attend. I’m sure the tributes will continue flowing in from people who knew Kirk and were bigger fans of him than this relatively disinterested commentator is. But this piece is not about remembering Charlie Kirk. It is about exploring one particular aspect of the left-wing reaction to his killing. Not the gleeful celebrations of his death on platforms like TikTok, nor the right-wing response to it. What I’m focused on is a concerted effort by left-liberal commentators and pundits to gaslight America into thinking this shooter was of the right, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

As of this writing, the alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, has not yet been arraigned. (Update: I called it.) All of the information we have about him, his involvement in the killing, and his motivations for doing so have come from public reporting, investigative leaks, or government officials involved with the case. Utah governor Spencer Cox, a Republican who is perhaps one of the most moderate state leaders in the country, has been an excellent source of information. The MAGA right is no fan of Cox, which matters in terms of his credibility in matters like this. His level-headedness is exactly what we need in a moment like this, when tensions are incredibly high. His explanations of the evidence in this case have been extremely helpful, so I suggest we all listen when he speaks.

The weight of the available evidence shows that Robinson was likely radicalized online, had leftist sympathies, and killed Kirk as revenge for the “hate” he espoused towards various “marginalized” groups, notably the transgender community. Robinson is a 22-year-old who was active in several radical left-wing online subcultures, from gaming to furry play (don’t look it up, please). He lived with and was romantic partners with a male in the process of transitioning genders. He had a conservative upbringing, but according to several friends and acquaintances, had left-wing politics in reaction to his family. He explicitly mentioned Kirk to his family and stated that he was a promoter of “hate.” Messages on the chat app Discord, provided by his roommate (who is cooperating with police), also point to this political belief system.

And, perhaps most importantly, he marked several of the shell casings for the bullets he had loaded into his rifle. Those markings include video game and furry memes, but also two specific phrases that make his left-wing politics obvious. First, one casing had some of the lyrics to the Italian song “Bella Ciao” inscribed on it. This tune has long been an “anti-fascist” anthem used by leftist groups around the world, often to directly promote violence against figures they deem fascistic (who rarely are). The most direct piece of evidence from these unfired bullets is the one casing that read “Hey, fascist! Catch!” This is quite clearly pointing to a leftist, “anti-fascist” motivation behind this heinous murder.

Even without the evidence already released, Occam’s Razor would suggest that the shooter was of the left. In this case, as in so many others, the simplest explanation is likely correct. He targeted the most popular right-wing influencer, shot him on a college campus, and did so during a question he was taking on transgender violence. When you bring the evidence to bear, including the shell casings, the idea that Kirk was promoting “hate,”[1] and the testimony of family and friends, the truth becomes all the more apparent. This quite palpable reality is being denied, en masse, by a great deal of the political left in this country.

Alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson, 22.

The left-wing propaganda machine has gone into overdrive to obfuscate, lie, and deflect from the very real rhetoric that created a climate in which Robinson decided to take matters into his own hands. Instead of coming to terms with the fact that left-wing violence has been consistently prevalent over the past few years – look at the antisemitic attacks, the antifa/BLM rioting, and the transgender school shooters, to name a few – they have chosen to deny reality itself. This is galling behavior from a group that considers itself to be the societal elite, the cream of the crop, and definitely the smartest people in the room. The narrative shifts have come at lightning speed. The shell casing evidence was denied. The trans partner story was denied. The friends who said he was leftist story was denied. The evidence was “made up” by the right to smear the left, according to Laurence Tribe, one of the left’s top legal minds and a former Obama Supreme Court shortlister (we really dodged a bullet on that one). Others have argued that if there was really evidence of his leftism, it would have been released; apparently, these people are functionally illiterate.

When they didn’t simply claim that the motivation was a mystery – contrary to all evidence released publicly thus far – they blamed the right. A narrative was shaped around the idea that Robinson was a “groyper,” an online subset of extreme right-wingers who are characterized by their blatant antisemitism verging on full neo-Nazism.[2] This group was absolutely antagonistic to Kirk, but the evidence points a different direction entirely. No matter. The “Kirk was killed by a right-winger” narrative was already in full swing. This clear untruth was promoted across social media, repeated over and over again by popular figures. Robinson’s romantic partnership with a trans-identified male was labeled as “right-coded.” The song “Bella Ciao” was discovered to be on one single groyper-aligned Spotify playlist, which apparently made it just as much indicative of the right as it is of the left. Atlantic writer Jemele Hill claimed Kirk was killed in a white supremacist gang hit (yes, really). British leftist comedian David Baddiel, who has over 800,000 followers on Twitter, called Robinson part of the “online far right.” Heather Cox Richardson, a Boston College history professor and the biggest individual political writer on Substack[3], wrote the following (with zero attribution or evidence):

“But in fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left. The alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, 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. Rather than grappling with reality, right-wing figures are using Kirk’s murder to prop up their fictional world.”

This is invented from whole cloth, using the shooter’s family as a means of ignoring his personal ideology. It is disgraceful, egregious lying from a person who has profound influence. Gaslighting is an overused term, but it certainly seems apt in this circumstance.

This false narrative has made a large impact already. According to polling, more Americans currently believe that the Kirk shooter was on the right as opposed to the reality, which is that he is of the left. The partisan divide is huge, with independents and Democrats buying into this false narrative. We often hear about the power of misinformation from these liberal commentators, blaming the right for trafficking in falsehoods. In this case, however, the call is coming from inside the house. It is the left that is pushing misinformation and largely the left that is eating it up. This is a bad sign for the health of the Republic. When major narrative divides open up over a clear, established fact pattern, polarization deepens and negative outcomes, including violence, become more possible.

In this case, the attempt to split the narrative and create a counter-truth in which Tyler Robinson was a right-winger who hated Kirk is meant to clear the left’s name and refocus on the right’s problem with political violence. Both right and left have a penchant for violent politics, especially on the fringes. The side more responsible tends to oscillate based on which side is in power at the moment. The out-party becomes more violent in response to its loss, but less so when it sees itself as victorious. As of now, that out-party is the left. This particular instance of political violence emanates from that bloody font. The understanding that political violence is a bipartisan problem is important. Just as important is understanding the motivations behind each such act. If a group cannot bring itself to acknowledge its own culpability – even if it is siloed to an individual and does not implicate a wider movement – that bodes ill for society and presages future violence.

Unfortunately, this brazen deflection meant to acquit the left and frame the right seems to be working, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. There is an adage that is quite apropos here: if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Right now, we seem to have a lot of people who falsely believe they are on an African safari. And there are some very influential people who have a vested interest in fanning the flames of that delusion, either to score political points, grow their followings, or push for more carnage. Shame on them.

---

[1] This is a classic leftist trope that would not at all characterize someone on the right, even on the extreme right. Same goes for declaring Kirk a fascist, as one shell casing did; if anything, the far right likes fascists and would surely not use the term as an insult.

[2] I would prefer not to discuss these cretinous losers any more than I have to, and I’m already pretty pissed that I have to mention them at all. If you want to learn more about them, feel free to do some research of your own.

[3] I’ll certainly have more to say in the future about this utter disgrace to my alma mater, but that is better left for another time.