SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
turning point usa
Leaked Chats Show Alleged Kirk Killer 'Doesn't Fit Into Any Tidy Narrative'
"He wasn't a Groyper. He also wasn't Antifa," said journalist Ken Klippenstein, who obtained Tyler Robinson's Discord messages and spoke with a childhood friend of the 22-year-old suspect.
Sep 16, 2025
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein on Tuesday challenged conflicting narratives circulating about Tyler Robinson by obtaining online chats and speaking with a childhood friend of the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating far-right activist Charlie Kirk.
Republican US President Donald Trump "and company portray the alleged Utah shooter as left-wing and liberals portray him as right-wing," Klippenstein wrote. "The federal conclusion will inevitably be that he was a so-called nihilist violent extremist (NVE); meanwhile, the crackdown has already begun, as I reported yesterday. The country is practically ready to go to war."
While Kirk's fatal shooting last week during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University has been widely condemned as political violence, the unnamed childhood friend told Klippenstein: “I think the main thing that’s caused so much confusion is that he was always generally apolitical for the most part... That's the big thing, he just never really talked politics, which is why it's so frustrating.”
“Everyone who knew him liked him and he was always nice, a little quiet and kept to himself mostly but wasn't a recluse,” the friend said, describing Robinson as a fan of the outdoors, video games—including Helldivers 2, the apparent source of some inscriptions on bullet casings found by authorities—and guns.
“Obviously he's okay with gay and trans people having a right to exist, but also believes in the Second Amendment,” according to the friend, who said that Robinson is bisexual and his family didn't know he was in a relationship with his transgender roommate.
Republican Utah Governor Spencer Cox and Federal Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director Dan Bongino have publicly identified his roommate and romantic partner as Lance Twiggs—and said that Twiggs is cooperating with authorities and did not know of Robinson's alleged plan to kill Kirk.
Robinson—who ultimately ended authorities' manhunt for the shooter by turning himself in—appeared virtually for his first court hearing on Tuesday. He faces multiple charges, including aggravated murder, and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
As Newsweek reported Tuesday, prosecutors have allegedly obtained text messages in which Robinson admits to Twiggs that he killed Kirk and discusses having to leave behind a rifle, later retrieved by authorities. Robinson reportedly told his parents that he targeted the Turning Point USA leader because "there is too much evil and the guy spreads too much hate."
In the wake of Kirk's death, many of his critics have also acknowledged his incendiary commentary on a range of topics. Right-wing figures and officials, including key members of President Donald Trump's administration, have responded by launching what Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) called “the biggest assault on the First Amendment in our country’s modern history.”
As Klippenstein wrote:
The federal government, the Washington crowd, and corporate media (based in Washington and New York) see the country in wholly partisan terms, Republican versus Democrat, Red versus Blue, old media versus social media, liberal versus conservative, right versus left, straight versus gay, and on and on. Charlie Kirk’s assassination (in Utah!) should remind us of the actual diversity of the nation, and of the cost of polarization that demonizes the other side.
No one in Robinson’s group is cheering or justifying the murder in any of the messages I reviewed. They’re just struggling to understand what their friend did. But Washington has become obsessed with the Discord chat, convinced it’s some kind of headquarters for the murder and cauldron of radicalization and conspiracy. Today FBI Director [Kash] Patel vowed to investigate “anyone and everyone in that Discord chat.”
What I see is a bunch of young people shocked, horrified, and searching for answers, like the rest of the country.
At least one person on Capitol Hill quickly took note of the reporting. Sharing it on the social media platform X, Congressman Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said: "This is very interesting. The more that comes out the more this doesn't fit into any tidy narrative other than a young man who made a bad choice with a gun."
Other journalists praised Klippenstein on X, saying: "Hey look it's real journalism," and "At the moment Ken Klippenstein has done the best reporting I've seen anywhere on Tyler Robinson."
Journalist Roger Sollenberger wrote: "This is the most valuable and insightful reporting yet on Tyler Robinson—citing current actual friends and messages from a Discord group he was in. And it underscores how stupid and irresponsible the rush has been to assign him to a political aisle."
Appearing before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Patel said the FBI is interviewing more than 20 people who were part of a Discord group with Robinson.
Responding on X, Klippenstein said: "The members of Tyler Robinson's Discord are just as shocked and traumatized by what happened as anyone. That the FBI is treating them like conspirators is so cruel it's stomach-turning."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Are America’s Far-Right Leaders So Young?
How social media turned a handful of young provocateurs into the far right’s national vanguard.
Sep 16, 2025
Through the late 2010s, pundits hailed Gen Z as America’s most progressive young cohort. Yet, the truth is more complicated: While many young voters voice support for climate action, racial justice, and reproductive rights, their overall partisan tilt is far less lopsided than early headlines implied. Support for Democrats among under-30 voters has softened since 2020, and young men in particular are drifting rightward on issues like gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights.
That gap between reputation and reality is, in part, due to a rising cadre of young conservatives who are more radical, more visible, and better organized than their progressive peers. From Nick Fuentes to Laura Loomer to the late Charlie Kirk, the figures shaping the far-right agenda have been startlingly young. Why, then, are some of the movement’s most prominent figures in their late 20s and early 30s? How did a political current once defined by veteran politicians and talk-radio personalities come to be led by live-streamers and college-circuit activists?
Consider Fuentes. Only 28, yet he commands a national audience of more than 700,000 followers. He has a dedicated fanbase, connections to GOP congressmen, and once had a private dinner with US President Donald Trump. And Fuentes is not an outlier. From political candidates to campus organizers, the far-right’s most prominent figures are getting younger—and more extreme.
The explanation lies in the internet’s ecosystem. Figures like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec were among the first to show how provocation and relentless online promotion could transform fringe ideas into mass influence. In the years since, news has gone largely digital, with about 86% of Americans getting at least some of their news on phones or computers. The overwhelming bulk of political information now flows through a dense lattice of live-streams, podcasts, and Discord servers, all spaces young people navigate with native ease.
For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
In this landscape, digital platforms have dismantled traditional barriers to political power. Two decades ago, a young ideologue needed gatekeepers—local radio, party donors, sympathetic editors—to build a following. Today, a ring light and an algorithm are enough. YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and X provide inexpensive infrastructure and frictionless amplification, allowing individuals to raise money, mobilize supporters, and establish a brand long before institutions can react.
Why is this dynamic propelling the far-right in particular? Without much formal representation in elected office, these ideas circulate almost entirely online, where scarcity makes them more alluring. And algorithms reward outrage, propelling the sharpest sound bites and most incendiary claims to the top of every feed. For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
Conservative legacy media compounds the effect. Figures who achieve algorithmic virality are quickly booked on cable programs and high-profile podcasts, which confer legitimacy and feed the next surge of online attention. The result is a self-reinforcing loop: Digital notoriety leads to mainstream exposure, which drives further radical content.
The American left lacks a parallel generation of online, movement-building leaders. Progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have national profiles, but their influence depends on elected office and formal party structures rather than on a grassroots, youth-led network. Yes, young progressives such as Dean Withers and Matt Bernstein have built impressive reputations as digital advocates for progressive causes. But they operate largely as individual voices, not as architects of a nationwide, highly-branded youth movement comparable to Kirk's Turning Point USA or Fuentes' America First movement. Comparable grassroots movements on the left, like the emerging 50501, lack visible leaders capable of unifying and sustaining a broad, youth-driven base.
This distinction matters. Without a cohesive, youth-led movement, progressives struggle to match the visibility and narrative power of their far-right counterparts. Every far-right provocation arrives with a spokesperson and a polished national platform, while the left relies on a handful of elected officials and scattered digital voices. The absence of equally prominent, institutionally supported young progressives cedes narrative ground, and gives rising alt-right leaders disproportionate space to break out online.
Addressing this imbalance will not turn on deplatforming extremist voices alone; the internet’s architecture makes that a game of whac-a-mole. Nor will it come solely from established progressive leaders. It requires cultivating and sustaining a cohort of young progressives who can operate effectively online and build movements without succumbing to social media's darkest ideologies. It also requires a cultural shift on the left: valuing charismatic leadership as a complement—not a substitute—for collective action.
Gen Z was supposed to guarantee a progressive future. Instead, many of its most visible political entrepreneurs are on the far-right. Unless progressives move beyond supporting individual creators and intentionally develop their own social movements, the loudest young voices shaping America’s political future will continue to belong to its most far-right fringes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
On Charlie Kirk, Public Grieving, and Violence
The country is turning him into a symbol, even as his legacy fuels harm, fear, and loss for families who will never be mourned this loudly.
Sep 12, 2025
I want to be clear: I don’t condone killing of any kind. That’s not who I am, and that’s not what I believe.
This post is also not about advocating for or against gun laws (although we know that the majority of Americans do agree with common-sense laws). This is about societal attention and whose lives are mourned publicly, and how certain narratives and policies shape who we grieve and why.
I am struck by how many people on my feed are publicly grieving Charlie Kirk. It feels dissonant. Let me explain why.
None of these same people posted about Minnesota House Member, Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, and her husband being murdered in their sleep. Nor did they post about Speaker John Hoffman and his wife being shot in their sleep by the same shooter (they did survive).
None posted about the 48 school shootings that have occurred already in 2025, leaving 19 dead and 81 injured (including one just hours after Kirk was shot, where two more children are critically injured, and at least four more injured in the Colorado school shooting).
None posted about the 50,000+ Palestinian children killed or injured in what can only be described as genocide.
None posted about the 688 women in the US who died in childbirth in 2024, or the 49,000 who almost did. Primarily women of color of course.
None posted about the 14 people who have died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody so far this year.
I could go on and on with these examples.
He spent his career normalizing deadly ideas (from gun culture to dehumanization), and in the end, he was consumed by the same violence he helped spread.
Here’s the dissonance: Charlie Kirk actively contributed to the narratives and policies that fueled this violence. He supported policies that tore children from their parents’ arms, while claiming to be a family man. He spread racist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic ideology while claiming to be a Christian. He near shouted misogynistic ideals while being married to a woman. Through Turning Point USA, he built a media machine that thrived on outrage, disinformation, and deepening division.
He once said, “I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that—it does a lot of damage.” If you don’t believe in empathy, it makes it much easier to oppress others and create division. It makes it much easier to push a narrative without regard for the consequences of that narrative.
He spent his career normalizing deadly ideas (from gun culture to dehumanization), and in the end, he was consumed by the same violence he helped spread.
Charlie Kirk didn’t physically commit violence himself, though he profited from fear, division, and policies that harmed and continue to harm marginalized people, thus perpetuating the violence. His influence amplified oppression, and that influence brought him financial gain, visibility, and political power.
It is, of course, deeply sad for his children. No child should have to lose a parent like this.
That being said, the way his death is being framed publicly goes beyond grief. It edges into martyrdom. This is turning him into a symbol, even as his legacy fuels harm, fear, and loss for families who will never be mourned this loudly.
We should grieve children, families, and communities first. Not the people who profited from their suffering.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular