The New York Post: “Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin Tyler Robinson lived with transgender partner.” Did I call this or what? See Friday’s essay on Freedom and Reason, Charlie Kirk’s Killer is in Custody, and the Specter of Antifa (or read my essays on the intersection of Antifa and radical gender ideology over the last several years, e.g., Delusion to Illusion: Transitioning Disordered Personalities into Valid Identities and Trans Day of Vengeance Cancelled Due to Genocide). It’s wild to watch the narrative come together—a narrative I could see unfolding before the facts even came to light. How could I see this? Because patterned events move in predictable ways. No prophetic insight required.
Here’s what we know as of this morning. Tyler Robinson, the suspect in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, is reportedly refusing to cooperate with investigators; Robinson has neither confessed nor assisted the FBI or local police in their probe. His family, friends, and others close to him, on the other hand, have been providing information. They’re helping authorities move the case forward.
Robinson’s roommate, Lance, aka Luna, Twiggs, who is described as his romantic partner, is a transidentifying male. Twiggs also appears to be a devotee to furry culture, appearing in images in furry-themed attire. Unlike Robinson, Twiggs is said to be fully cooperating with investigators. Reports suggest that he was shocked by the incident and had no prior knowledge of any plot. According to multiple outlets, he has shared communications and other evidence with the FBI, including messages in which Robinson allegedly referenced bullet casings and retrieving a rifle. (The media is referring to Twiggs using feminine pronouns. Talk about tenacity. They’re not giving up that ghost.)
Typical of the way corporate media handles cases inconvenient to the narrative, the reporting tells its readers that it remains unclear whether Robinson’s relationship with his transgender partner had any connection to his motive. Authorities are examining whether his hostility toward Kirk’s views on gender identity might have played a role, but that is not confirmed. You think? For now, the roommate is not being treated as a suspect and faces no known legal consequences. Instead, Twigg’s role has been presented as that of a witness and cooperative source for investigators. Maybe they’re extracting more information before arresting him as a co-conspirator.
As I showed in Friday’s essay, the etchings on the bullet casings, taken in their totality, make it rather obvious that Robinson was motivated to murder Charlie Kirk because of Kirk’s insistence on the truth of gender, that it is binary and immutable, and that a rational people should not have to affirm the delusions of those who have groomed by a political ideology designed to disorder their thinking. For Robinson, it was personal.
Motivation to commit political violence in the name of radical gender ideology is not limited to the Kirk assassination. These usually occur in association with the militant left-wing organization Antifa, which is, apart from rampant inner-city crime, the largest source of street-level domestic violence in America today. (See The Problem with Antifascism; Anarchists and Corrupting the Three Arrows; Totalitarian Monopoly Capitalism: Fascism Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow; Fake News, Executive Power, and the Anti-Working Class Character of Street Crime.)
Antifa has been involved in various disruptive actions aimed at groups or individuals they perceive as opposing transgender rights. This has included efforts to interrupt or break up assemblies, events, or talks associated with those whom trans activists identify as TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). Antifa’s actions have progressively moved up the escalatory ladder, with acts of violence now involving the murder of children and the assassination of conservative leaders, those Antifa identifies as “fascists.” This is how deranged the left has become: conservatives and liberals—those in the center of the political spectrum, and who defend the principles of constitutional republicanism—have become far right and fascist, while those with a compulsion to perpetrate violence are “social justice warriors.”
These violent actions are generally framed by participants and their apologists as a form of direct action against what they view as exclusionary and harmful ideologies. In anarchist jargon, this is termed “propaganda of the deed” (see Tesla and Propaganda of the Deed; On Riots and the Postmodern Corruption of the Culture of Protest). The disruptive actions at assemblies go beyond the heckler’s veto—bad enough, since it suppresses the free speech right of citizens. They also include clashes with opposing groups at rallies or events, resulting in injuries. Physical assaults and property damage aren’t accidental but inherent in Antifa action. Antifa members describe these measures as defensive or as direct action against perceived threats, but such behavior undermines civil discourse through the deliberate use of fear, intimidation, and violence.
We must put this matter as explicitly as possible so we are not misunderstood: Antifa and trans activism are associated with a range of actions that fall under the designation of domestic terrorism.
Terrorism is the deliberate use of fear, intimidation, or violence—often against civilians or symbolic targets—to achieve ideological, political, or religious goals. Unlike conventional warfare, terrorists do not rely on large armies but instead on sudden, disruptive acts such as bombings and shootings meant to silence voices and spread fear beyond the immediate victims. This is what Antifa and transactivism seek: to silence voices by frightening them and those around them with threats of violence and reputational harm.
That’s right, terrorism is not just violent action, but harassment and intimidation. Terrorists don’t fight with words. They aren’t civil. They don’t accept basic civil and human rights. They are illiberal and authoritarian. They use violence to terrorize their enemies.
We mustn’t study Antifa in isolation. The phenomenon is not self-caused. Authoritarian and totalitarian movements have historically relied on organized street-level enforcers whom they recruit to undermine democratic order and impose their will through intimidation and violence. In Italy, Mussolini’s Blackshirts, in Germany, Hitler’s Brownshirts, and in Maoist China, the Red Guards—all exemplify how it is not random disorder but the deliberate orchestration of party and ideology that mobilizes such groups. It doesn’t take a lot of brain power to see that leftwing youth roaming the West today are analogs to Mao’s Red Guard. Indeed, the ideology that moves them is strikingly similar to China’s Cultural Revolution. (See Maoism, Wokism, and the Tyranny of Bureaucratic Collectivism.)
History tells us, when Democrats and progressives tell us otherwise (except when it comes to the far right groups they tell us are the real threat—see Antifa, the Proud Boys, and the Relative Scale of Violent Extremism for comparative threat assessment), that paramilitary street fighters are organized, directed, and legitimized by the ruling movements themselves, serving as instruments to destabilize civil society, terrorize opponents, and erode the institutions of democracy. Far from spontaneous, terrorist violence is a central strategy of authoritarian power, designed to create chaos, fear, and submission in the public sphere. It has a source. Ideology plays a major role, of course. But elite power and financing do as well. Indeed, elite power is the ultimate source of the ideology.
To be sure, sometimes the terrorist is unaffiliated, organizationally speaking. Luigi Mangione’s fatal shooting of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in December 2024 is likely a lone wolf event. However, it is nonetheless inspired by left-wing advocacy of violence—and the left celebrated Mangione’s actions, just as they are celebrating the actions of Tyler Robinson only a few days ago.
This should terrify us. While the majority of Americans disapprove of Mangione’s actions, a significant portion of younger voters, particularly those aged 18–29, have expressed some degree of acceptance. In fact, an Emerson College poll found that more than forty percent of young voters considered the act “acceptable or somewhat acceptable.” Crosstabs reveal that the sentiment was coming from you know who: respondents who identified as Democrats and progressives. Mangione has garnered significant financial support, including over $1 million in crowdfunding for his legal defense.
Are other recent assassinations of the enemies of the left also lone wolf events? Here is where patterns and a grasp of power analysis matter.
On July 13, 2024, a man tried to assassinate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. The assassin was 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks of Bethel Park, PA. Following his actions, Crooks was shot dead by a Secret Service counter-sniper—but only after Crooks squeezed off several rounds, grazing Trump’s right ear, and killing a rally-goer. Crooks’ presence was conspicuous, and law enforcement was aware of it. I cannot know for sure if law enforcement allowed it to happen, but I will always wonder whether they did. (See They Tried to Kill Donald Trump Yesterday; Progressives Losing Their Shit Over the Attempt on Trump’s Life; see also A Second Attempt on Trump’s Life, as well as The Continuing Campaign to Unperson Donald Trump, where I express my concerns before the assassination attempt that Democrats and progressives were priming assassins.)
Was Crooks Antifa? I can’t say. Joe Biden, a man who used FBI Director Christopher Wray’s denial of Antifa as an organized domestic terrorist threat to dismiss Trump’s concern during the first debate of the 2020 presidential campaign, was the President in July 2024. And Wray was his FBI Director. Did they hide something from the public? Why don’t we know more about Crooks? Why does the media not seem to want to know more?
What we do know is suspiciously threadbare and murky. Crooks is portrayed by the media as a socially isolated loner with no clear political ideology. His politics are confusing, we’re told: a registered Republican who once donated $15 through Act Blue to the Progressive Turnout Project. He practiced with the AR-15 rifle he used at Butler and brought explosives and ammunition to the rally, suggesting a larger plan, though investigators found no co-conspirators.
Despite months of investigation, the FBI has not identified a motive for the attack. At least that’s what we’re told. Typical line when the government wants to muddy the waters (when Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed Robinson’s political commitments on NBC News’ Meet the Press yesterday, he emphasized that the motive remains unclear). We hear the same thing about the 2023 Nashville school massacre perpetrated by a trans identified shooter. (See Audrey Hale’s Manifesto: Blueprint for the Total Destruction of What?) We hear the same thing about the August 2025 Minneapolis school massacre perpetrated by a trans identified shooter. (See The Terrorist Embodies the Ideology in Reality.) Thanks to a change in administrations, we have a lot more access to information in the latter case. But have you noticed? The memory holing of Robert Westman? You have to force yourself to remember these things. Out of sight out of mind works wonders for disrupting one’s pattern recognition.
During a C-SPAN interview in July 2024, Representative Eli Crane remarked on the unsettling, sterile look of Crooks’s room, describing it as “almost like a lab,” with “no trash, no signs of being lived in.” The New York Times later confirmed that Crooks had been stockpiling explosive materials in the bedroom he shared with his parents—just steps away from where his family slept. But the media are disinterested in determining why the room appeared to have been professionally scrubbed. Crooks’s father suggested that Crooks was suffering from depression. Do people suffering from depression keep their bedrooms in lab-like sterility? Maybe. Unlikely, though.
Crooks had accounts on numerous social media platforms—Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, TikTok—as well as Discord. He searched gun/ammo sites, campaign routes, the specific rally location in Butler, and images of the rally grounds. His Discord account was “rarely utilized,” according to Discord, who told investigators they saw no evidence it was used to plan the attack or express political views. But Discord has said the said the same thing about Tyler Robinson, even though FBI took pictures of Robinson’s Discord account (thanks to Twigg’s cooperation) that clearly showed Robinson used Discord to plan the attack.
If Kamala Harris had won the presidency in 2024, and kept on Christopher Way (the FBI chief resigned in December 2024, well short of his ten-year tenure at the agency), does anybody honestly believe we would know anything about Robinson at all? The evidence from his Discord account the FBI collected? The engravings on his bullet casings? The Halloween images mocking Trump (riding him like a horse way back in 2017, when Robinson was 14 years old) and Groypers? His dinner conversations with his parents about how Charlie Kirk was a preacher of hate? The fact that his roommate, and probably lover, was a transgender woman?
On that last piece of evidence, the FBI, in point of fact, didn’t tell us about this. And had Elon Musk not acquired Twitter and changed the social media landscape, The New York Post would probably have been deplatformed—just as they were when they exposed Hunter Biden’s laptop—for reporting on the story. (See New York Post Drops a Bombshell on the Biden Campaign. I had this figured out before The New York Post published stories about it. See The Conspiracy to Overthrow an American President. I later brag about that here: I Told You Joe Biden is Corrupt and Compromised.)
The public should make no mistake about this: Antifa is a major domestic terrorist organization operating in America today, working alongside Black Lives Matter rioters during the summer of love, the antisemitic pro-Islamist groups harassing Jewish students and occupying college campuses, those fire bombing Tesla, and violent trans activists—all of which have enjoyed funding by dark money progressive groups associated with the Democratic Party.
Shockingly, while some officials, including Donald Trump during his first term, have called for Antifa to be labeled as a terrorist group, no such designation has been made by the US Department of State or the Department of Homeland Security. Senator Bill Cassidy introduced S.Res. 279 in the 116th Congress (2019-2020), a resolution calling for Antifa to be designated as a domestic terrorist organization. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but did not become law. Republicans controlled the Senate at the time. On January 9, 2025, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced H.Res. 26 in the 119th Congress, which would “Deem certain conduct of members of Antifa as domestic terrorism and designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.” That resolution has likewise been referred to the Judiciary Committee. January seems like a lifetime ago.
The US does not have a legal framework under which domestic groups can be designated like foreign organizations (Foreign Terrorist Organization status) by the State Department. But there is existing law. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2331, domestic terrorism is defined as activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that violate US or state criminal laws, are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence government policy through intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of government through mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and that occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The law provides all the tools necessary to confront Antifa, whose activities meet several of the elements of the definition.
This error must be corrected. Trump must designate Antifa a terrorist organization. Congress should follow up with enabling legislation. Reasonable people don’t reason with fanatics; zealots are entirely unreasonable. And a reasonable government certainly doesn’t compromise with extremist violence. It obliterates its source. This is how one returns a nation to reason. So what gives?
In a Friday morning interview on Fox & Friends, President Trump was asked how he planned to address the aftermath of Kirk’s shooting in Utah. Co-host Ainsley Earhardt posed the question: “How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?” She also (ridiculously) noted the presence of radicals on both the left and right sides of US politics. Trump response: “I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less.” He elaborated: “The radicals on the left are the real problem—they are vicious, horrible, and politically savvy. They push for men in women’s sports, advocate for widespread transgender policies, and support open borders. These are among the worst things to happen to this country.”
Nice rhetoric, and I want to be hopeful, but I’m concerned about what I am seeing from Republicans in their actions. The September 12 press briefing, where Kash Patel and the FBI allowed Utah Governor Spencer Cox to take the lead, was troubling. Cox has only recently moved to protect children from radical gender ideology; he came to that position very late and only after grassroots sentiment and the nationwide trend against transitioning minors compelled him to, it appears, out of political expediency. As recently as 2022, Cox vetoed House Bill 11, which sought to ban boys from participating in girls’ high school sports. He expressed concern about the bill’s impact on “transgender youth,” deploying the well-worn trans activist rhetoric of emotional blackmail: “These kids, they’re just trying to stay alive.”
The FBI, by failing to take the lead in the press conference, allowed Cox to deliver what media organizations characterized as a poignant call for national unity and de-escalation. Cox rightly condemned the rising tide of political violence, and, as noted above, admitted yesterday that Robinson is in the grip of leftist ideology, but he prioritized in the most critical moment healing over hostility at a time when righteous anger is needed to compel the government to take action. He set up the government to appear overbearing when—if ever—it acts decisively to combat the problem of domestic terrorism and political assassination.
Dutifully, the media almost uniformly portrayed Cox’s remarks as standing in stark contrast to the “divisive rhetoric” of some Republicans, positioning Cox as a voice of reason advocating for civility and unity at a time when the government needs to get ugly with a very serious threat to safety and security.
Which Republicans? The New York Times bemoans that “In an Era of Deep Polarization, Unity Is Not Trump’s Mission,” “President Trump does not subscribe to the traditional notion of being president for all Americans.” The article goes on about Trump “angrily blaming the murder on the American left and vowing revenge.”
Shawn McCreesh, a White House reporter for The New York Times covering the Trump administration, complains about Trump “running around with flamethrowers … torching the federal bureaucracy, the global order, the media, the opposition party, ” as if the federal bureaucracy, the global order, the media, and Democrats represent will partners in Trump’s desire to see all Americans succeed in a restored constitutional republic.
The image of Cox as the voice of reason was also contrasted with that of Wisconsin state representative, another Republican, Derrick Van Orden. Van Orden has faced criticism for his “inflammatory rhetoric” on social media. He posted a series of tweets blaming Democrats and the media for the murder, declaring that “the gloves are off.” In one tweet, Van Orden wrote, “The left and their policies are leading America into a civil war. And they want it. Just like the Democrat party wanted our 1st civil war.” How is this in any way inflammatory? The truth is now inflammatory?
Van Orden’s statements were predictably condemned by Wisconsin Democrats for escalating tensions and promoting a divisive narrative. As if political assassination is not divisive. As if civil war isn’t looming (I’m not sure we aren’t already in it). As if Democrats have no interest in tamping down criticism of their routine calls for political unrest and demonization of conservatives and their leaders. (Kudos to Van Orden on the historical point of reference: the Democrats did indeed take us into the first civil war. They wanted to keep their black slaves.)
The problem isn’t that Republicans are too divisive or that their rhetoric is inflammatory. The problem is that they’re not aggressive enough (in this and several other areas—immigration, the obstructionists in the federal judiciary, rampant crime in the blue cities). Is the Trump Administration shrinking in the face of domestic terrorism? Why hasn’t Trump declared Antifa a terrorist organization and gone after its members and their sponsors? The extremist spawn of progressive politics has twice tried to take the man’s life. One of them took the life of Charlie Kirk.
Are officials in the FBI scared? Have they gotten too close to the gravitational pull of the deep state? I’ve watched Patel over the last several years. He always exuded confidence. He looks timid to me now. Maybe it’s grief. Maybe he’s overwhelmed. After all, he and Dan Bongino are trying to lead an agency that was taken over by deep state actors years ago, filling the agency with recalcitrant bureaucrats with DEI training. Maybe he feels he needs to tone down his fiery persona, appear more stateman-like. But I wonder.
Our leaders are supposed to defend the homeland against terrorism, foreign or domestic, with gusto—whatever the risks may be to personal safety and political reputation. If they don’t, if they cower in the face of terrorist violence, then the terrorists win, because inaction is precisely what terrorist acts seek. That’s its raison d’être.
Democrats counter with instances of white supremacist extremism, but Antifa is a special problem because it does not represent a political movement operating from the fringes. It’s been mainstreamed and excused. (No Republican defends racist violence—conservatives and liberals abhor and condemn it.) Antifa exists because its members are the shocktroops of one of the two major political parties in the United States and the power that party represents: transnational corporations. For corporate ambition, democratic republicanism and the modern nation-state are fetters on the globalization project.
However, the rot runs deeper than the corporate elite, its command over our policymaking and sensemaking institutions, the Democratic Party, and the street-level thugs who disorder public spaces. Ask yourselves: why are millions of Americans voting for politicians who push extremist ideology and foment rebellion? Why would so many Americans hate their country? But they do, and this reality means we can’t merely refuse to compromise with Antifa, or with the party and power that makes Antifa possible, but even more than that, with the rank-and-file American who has been brainwashed with woke progressive ideology.
Progressives on social media have been freaking out now that the cat is out of the bag: Robinson, the man who assassinated Kirk, is Antifa. At first, they tried to deny the truth by posting pictures of the Robinson family, emphasizing how white, Republican, and Christian they are—as if many Antifa members don’t grow up in white conservative Christian households. The fact is that a family can do their best to raise their child, but once the child is given over to the public school system and Internet chat rooms, even the best socialization is at great risk of coming undone.
I don’t mean to suggest that progressives have given up their denialism. They’re still trying, and their attempts are becoming more absurd by the moment. However, as awareness began to spread that Robison was, in fact, Antifa, progressives resorted to the tactics of distraction by pointing to teenagers radicalized in online white supremacist networks. To be sure, this is a problem, but what does that have to do with Republicans?
More broadly, progressives have rehearsed the myth that white heterosexual males are mostly responsible for mass shootings (I have an essay coming soon on this topic). But, again, when have Republicans ever stood at the podium and called on their constituents to rise up and get in people’s faces? Five days have passed since Kirk’s murder. Where are the riots? No overturned cars. No vandalism of monuments. No mob violence. Just candlelight vigils.
None of the rationalizations will work. Progressives aside (they’re living the dream—just not the American Dream), America is waking up to the grim truth that Antifa, BLM, and trans violence are the consequence of progressive rhetoric in the halls of government, hegemonic cultural institutions, the mass media, in educational curricula, and the willful failure of the criminal justice system to effectively control the consequences of anti-white and anti-Western ideology. The source of the violence is well-known and well-understood. I have been documenting it on the pages of Freedom and Reason for years.
Democrats and progressives call for civility and unity not because they really believe in the intrinsic value of these ideals (such sentiments betrayed by the fact that they have preached incivility and disunity for years and clearly do not intend to stop), but so they can make it appear as if political violence is a problem on “both sides,” thus giving them space and time to keep doing what they’ve been doing. But the problem is self-evidently on one side—their side. Conservatives and liberals can’t be so stupid as to heed the call of those who started all this to lower the temperature now that the fruit of their harvest has come to fruition—the riots, the vandalism, the harassment, intimidation, and violence? I pray we’re not that stupid.
I have on this platform called for people to ignore the fool on the hill. Let him rant and rave up there where he can’t hurt anybody. This is a metaphor for the marginalization zealots deserve. However, we can no longer ignore the fool when he has come down off that hill. Nor can we ignore who or what called him to the village. We know who they are.
A few days ago on social media, I said that the monster the Frankensteins in the Democratic Party, the progressive movement, and the deep state they deny, created got away from them. I could have put that better. Indeed, the monster they deny they created remains on the chain. Trump and Kash Patel’s FBI have to follow that chain to its source—link by link. Until the deep state is smashed, everything populist nationalists have worked for will be lost. This is the moment when the Democratic Party can be fully exposed for what it is (what it has always been): the party of transnational corporate power. We cannot lose this moment.
Waking up to Antifa as an organized threat to domestic peace and tranquility is only the first step. Here’s the next step one has to take if he wants to save this beloved Republic:
freedom and reason 