Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the Trump administration’s promise to go after the “radical left” a study showing most domestic terrosim is far-right was disappeared.
Archived: https://archive.is/Ow3FE
Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the Trump administration’s promise to go after the “radical left” a study showing most domestic terrosim is far-right was disappeared.
Archived: https://archive.is/Ow3FE
Yeah:
So they did acknowledge it, but kind of gave it a pass because he wasn’t “affiliated with the Democratic Party or any other mainstream reformist, progressive or leftist organisation”.
I think it’s still a bit up in the air about whether Tyler Robinson had a consistent ideology. He is 22, an age where political leanings can be all over the place and evolve pretty rapidly. Whatever the case, it seems he operated alone. So we can consider how much online rhetoric influenced him one way or another, but it doesn’t seem like there was any organizational pressure or even a forum that had a chance to talk him into or out of his plan.
The article does make a broader point well supported by data, broadly speaking the right has gotten more violent and we don’t see a similar pattern on the left. No matter which way Tyler lands or just attributed to less ostensibly political ideology, I think the trend is still valid. It’s somewhat less dangerous if they can definitively establish him as a Fuentes like, but I fear he might be credibly “grown out of it”.
“He was young and operated alone so does it count?”
So those classified as right wing perpetrators, were they older and organized?
I also think we can’t overlook his upbringing. Growing up in a conservative household and raised to use guns from a young age, his decision to kill Charlie Kirk stems from that upbringing. Even if his politics happened to deviate from that of his parents, which is still in the realm of speculation right now, he was only using the tools and the methodology that he was given.