Tags: candace-owens, max-blumenthal, elon-musk, benjamin-netanyahu, charlie-kirk, kash-patel, milo-yiannopoulos
Conspiracy theories blaming the “Groypers” for Charlie Kirk’s assassination are circulating, despite flimsy evidence based on misinterpretations of internet culture and bullet casing inscriptions. Meanwhile, the authenticity of text messages between the alleged killer and his boyfriend is questioned due to unusual formality and excessive detail.
The days following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk have been marked by a flurry of speculation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories regarding the identity and motivation of the alleged killer, Tyler Robinson. While some, including commentator Candace Owens and journalist Max Blumenthal, have insinuated Israeli involvement due to Kirk’s purported shifting stance on Israel, a particularly bizarre narrative emerged attempting to implicate the “Groypers,” a far-right group led by Nick Fuentes, known for their confrontational tactics and criticisms of Kirk. This narrative gained surprising traction, appearing in mainstream outlets like Reuters and Vanity Fair, and prompting widespread discussion on social media. The basis for this claim rests on flimsy connections, misinterpretations, and outright fabrications. Robinson’s purported gamer status, a characteristic shared by some Groypers, was cited as evidence. A 2018 photograph of Robinson dressed as a “squatting Slav,” a meme involving Adidas tracksuits, cigarettes, and vodka, was conflated with the Pepe the Frog meme, sometimes associated with the far-right, and falsely presented as a Groyper symbol. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of internet culture and the distinct origins and evolution of these memes. The “squatting Slav” predates both Pepe and the Groyper movement.
Furthermore, the inscriptions found on the bullet casings used in the assassination were misinterpreted to support the Groyper narrative. One inscription, “catch this fascist,” was deemed to be a right-wing sentiment. However, Kirk’s political positions, characterized by his “big government sucks” motto and focus on debating leftists on college campuses, hardly align with fascism. The far-right’s criticisms of Kirk stemmed from his perceived moderation, particularly on issues like immigration and Israel, not from an accusation of fascism. The other inscription, “Bella Ciao,” an Italian anti-fascist anthem from the 1960s, was linked to the Groypers through a random Spotify playlist with a negligible following that included a remix of the song. This tenuous link was then amplified to suggest that “Bella Ciao” was a Groyper anthem. This contradicts the actual music associated with the Groyper movement, which has historically consisted of contemporary artists like Kanye West and Miley Cyrus. The ease with which such a flimsy narrative spread suggests a coordinated disinformation campaign, raising questions about the motivations behind the effort to frame the Groypers.
The rapid and widespread dissemination of the Groyper theory, despite its lack of factual basis, suggests a deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion. The theory originated with Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial figure known for his far-right views, who experienced a sudden surge in followers on X (formerly Twitter) shortly after promoting the narrative. This surge, coupled with Elon Musk’s engagement with Yiannopoulos’s tweets, raises suspicions of coordinated promotion. Yiannopoulos’s connections to prominent Zionist figures, including Karen Giorno and Susie Wiles, both linked to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, further complicates the picture. The attempt to frame the Groypers raises the specter of regime change within the online right wing, with established figures like Ben Shapiro and Yiannopoulos potentially benefiting from Kirk’s death and the marginalization of Fuentes. This theory gains credence when considering the broader context of previous attempts to discredit Fuentes, including accusations of being a federal operative. The narrative serves to eliminate both Kirk, a figure increasingly at odds with his pro-Israel donors, and Fuentes, a more radical critic of Israel, clearing the way for more establishment-friendly figures like Shapiro and Yiannopoulos.
The transcript of the text message exchange between Tyler Robinson, the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk, and his transgender boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, shortly before Robinson’s surrender to police, has raised concerns about its authenticity. The conversation, obtained by NBC News, details Robinson’s actions, including the location of the murder weapon and a change of clothes, raising questions about its organic nature and purpose. Robinson directs Twiggs to a note hidden under his keyboard, stating, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, I am going to take it.” This note, later discarded by Twiggs, appears to be the confession referenced by FBI Director Kash Patel, despite claims of its destruction, suggesting law enforcement retrieved a digital copy from Twiggs’ device. The subsequent exchange details Robinson’s actions after the shooting, including his escape, attempts to retrieve the murder weapon, and ultimate decision to surrender.
Several aspects of the transcript appear unnatural and contrived. Robinson’s language is unusually formal, using phrases like “my vehicle” instead of “my car.” He provides an excessive amount of detail about the weapon, his escape route, and the change of clothes, almost as if constructing a narrative for a future audience. The highly expository nature of the text exchange has led to speculation about its purpose. Some theorize that Robinson, under duress and facing the death penalty, fabricated the conversation for law enforcement, providing a complete narrative to exonerate any potential accomplices. This theory is supported by Robinson’s emphasis on acting alone. However, other details within the transcript contradict this interpretation. For example, Robinson asks Twiggs, “Remember how I was engraving bullets?” This seemingly implicates Twiggs, contradicting the supposed goal of exoneration. This raises questions about whether the conversation was a genuine, albeit stilted, exchange between Robinson and Twiggs or a carefully crafted narrative designed to mislead investigators.
The transcript raises more questions than it answers, contributing to the growing uncertainty surrounding the Kirk assassination. Was this a genuine confession from a nervous amateur, or a meticulously constructed performance designed to control the narrative? The details included in the transcript, particularly regarding the disposal of the weapon and the change of clothes, seemingly address discrepancies in the official narrative. This raises the possibility that the conversation was intended to preemptively explain these discrepancies and steer public opinion. The unusual formality of the language, the excessive detail, and the self-aware nature of the confessions all point to the possibility of fabrication. The question remains: if fabricated, who orchestrated this performance, and for what purpose? Was it Robinson himself, attempting to manipulate the investigation, or was he a pawn in a larger conspiracy, his words scripted by others to achieve a specific outcome? The investigation into the Kirk assassination is far from over, and the transcript adds another layer of complexity to an already convoluted case. The FBI has identified more than 20 persons of interest, suggesting a wider network may be involved. Unraveling the truth will require careful scrutiny of every piece of evidence, including this perplexing text exchange, and a willingness to consider all possibilities, no matter how improbable they may seem.