They Wanted a Foreigner
For thirty-three hours after Charlie Kirk was shot dead in Utah, Governor Spencer Cox prayed. Not for peace. Not for understanding. Not even for Kirk’s family. He prayed that the shooter would be “from another country.”
That sentence, dropped almost casually, reveals the whole architecture of the modern American right. The horror of the act itself mattered less than the convenience of its narrative. If the killer were foreign, the state could mobilize fear, summon camps, station troopers, tighten the grip. A foreigner would mean utility. A foreigner would mean profit.
But the shooter was not foreign. He was not Antifa. He was not trans. He was not an immigrant. He was one of their own — Tyler Robinson, twenty-two years old, born and raised in Utah, white, Republican, raised in a MAGA Mormon family, a product of the very ecosystem that made Charlie Kirk. And suddenly, the story no longer worked.
The right had prayed for a scapegoat. What they got was a mirror.
⸻
From the moment Kirk’s body hit the ground, the spin machine went into overdrive. The talking points were pre-written: this was the “radical left.” Trump himself, within hours, blamed Democrats. Fox News echoed the charge. Online MAGA influencers flooded timelines with warnings of “Antifa terrorism.” Before Robinson’s name was even known, the enemy had already been declared. It was trans activists, anarchists, immigrants — anyone but a white Republican son of Utah.
The propaganda was not sloppy. It was deliberate. By the time Robinson’s identity became public, millions had already absorbed the false narrative. Millions had already been primed to believe that Kirk died a martyr at the hands of the left. When the truth emerged, it was simply discarded. Some commentators pivoted to “woke college professors.” Others mumbled about vague “online influences.” Anything but the reality: that Kirk had been murdered not by his ideological enemies but by the very movement he helped build.
⸻
The bullet casings themselves carried the mark of our poisoned culture: “Hey fascist, catch.” “Bella Ciao.” A line from the video game Helldivers 2. These were not slogans of organized revolution but fragments of irony and trolling, the detritus of meme culture. A generation raised in digital nihilism, where jokes blur into threats and threats into action, where violence is content and content is violence.
Robinson wasn’t a lone wolf. He was the logical extension of a movement that has fed its youth a steady diet of hate, grievance, and contempt. His world was not MSNBC, not drag shows, not universities. His world was the warped digital subculture that the right itself built.
⸻
To understand why Robinson turned his gun on Charlie Kirk, you have to go back to the Groyper Wars. In 2019, Nick Fuentes and his army of young online followers declared Kirk to be the enemy of true conservatism. They crashed his Turning Point USA events, peppered him with barbed questions about immigration, Israel, and LGBTQ rights, then flooded the internet with clips portraying him as evasive, cowardly, corrupt. To the Groypers, Kirk was “Conservative Inc.” — a slick marketer of empty patriotism, more interested in billionaire donors than purity of ideology.
This was not a debate on the margins. It was a generational revolt. Kirk preached capitalism, small government, and a sanitized culture war. Fuentes and the Groypers demanded ethno-nationalism, open antisemitism, and Christian authoritarianism. The fights got ugly. Kirk’s staff barred Groypers from events. Fuentes’ followers smeared Kirk relentlessly online. The feud metastasized into a cold civil war inside the right.
By 2020, Kirk and Fuentes despised each other openly. Kirk denounced the Groypers as extremists who were sabotaging conservatism. Fuentes labeled Kirk a traitor, a puppet, a grifter. And through it all, Kirk tried to hold his ground as the respectable face of Trump’s youth movement. But the ground was shifting beneath him. His audience was bleeding into Fuentes’ camp, drawn by the thrill of extremism, by the promise of belonging to something rawer, meaner, more “authentic.”
Charlie Kirk was not killed by the left. He was killed by the ideological heirs of Nick Fuentes. His assassination was the bloody exclamation point on a feud that had been raging in full public view for half a decade.
⸻
And yet the political class cannot admit this. The Trump administration delayed the public announcement of Robinson’s arrest for nearly nine hours, holding it back so that the president himself could reveal it live on Fox & Friends. Even justice became theater. Even grief became ratings.
Stephen Miller invoked Kirk’s supposed “last words” as a sacred charge to fight the radical left — a fabrication that fit the script even as the facts shredded it. The White House doubled down on the myth rather than confront the truth. The machine cannot survive without scapegoats. So it creates them.
⸻
But there is another dimension to the fallout: speech. Not as abstract ideal, but as battlefield. The post-Kirk world has seen dozens of people fired, suspended, or disciplined for their responses on social media. Teachers, emergency workers, military staff, journalists — all losing jobs or being investigated because of what they posted online. The right, in many of these cases, has acted both as targeter and prosecutor, amplifying posts, doxxing accounts, calling for action.
A few high-profile cases: Matthew Dowd, a political analyst, was fired by MSNBC after he suggested on air that Kirk’s rhetoric may have helped create a climate of hateful words leading to hateful actions. (Guardian, People)  Another case: in Florida, educators in Clay County were removed and under investigation for social media posts celebrating or rationalizing Kirk’s death. One teacher posted: “This may not be the obituary we were all hoping to wake up to, but it is a close second for me.” Another, a counselor, alluded to previous positions of Kirk’s about gun deaths, invoking that stance in their reaction. 
Also among those disciplined: a Secret Service agent under scrutiny for social posts; a communications coordinator for the Carolina Panthers fired over Instagram commentary; an NFL team‐communications staffer; university employees; emergency services personnel; and others. Many employers drew upon codes of conduct to justify terminations or leave. 
These firings serve two functions: punishing people for crossing red lines, sure. But also sending a message. Speech is dangerous. Dissent or mockery is toxic. Any deviation from the accepted narrative (mourning, outrage, solidarity) risks professional ruin. It’s a chilling atmosphere, intentionally built.
⸻
Governor Cox’s prayer reveals what was really at stake. He wanted the shooter to be foreign because foreignness makes cruelty easier. Foreignness can be packaged. Foreignness can be deported, detained, walled off. Foreignness feeds the machine.
But Robinson was not foreign. He was familiar. He was family. He was the boy down the street with the MAGA hat and the AR-15 in his truck. He was the son of the very people who prayed for a scapegoat. And so the mask slips. The cruelty is not imported. It is homegrown.
⸻
What emerges is a three-part cycle: one, radicalization on the right that festers via meme culture, extremist critique (e.g. the Groypers vs Kirk); two, political violence as its logical outcome; three, narrative control, scapegoating, and speech suppression when that violence reflects poorly on the movement.
We can see this cycle in real time:
• The Groypers have long objected to Kirk’s conservatism, his perceived moderation, his willingness to play well with institutions. The hostility was ideological but daily: public criticism, viral clips, provocations.
• That feud radicalized followers — people who saw Kirk not as a leader to follow but as a target.
• Then came the assassination.
• When the assassin turned out to be one of their own (a MAGA, Trump‐aligned man), the right needed a different narrative: someone external, someone antisocial, someone leftist.
• So they invented or promoted one: the shooter was a trans leftist, or Antifa, or liberal, or foreign.
• That fell apart under scrutiny. So then came phase - punish dissent: people who said things that threatened the narrative are fired.
⸻
The right’s hunger for scapegoats is not new, but this instance highlights how theatrical and preemptive the scapegoating now is. They didn’t wait to see facts. They didn’t wait for confirmation. They created the blame network first. Those who dissented — those who asked “Wait, what if this was someone from our side?” — were silenced, punished.
What is being lost in this moment is not just truth, but the possibility of self-reflection. Because no movement that cannot reflect on its own violence can contain it. No ideology that equates dissent with betrayal can avoid eating itself. And right now, when the killer was one of their own, the movement pivoted to purge.
⸻
The aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination reveals truth about America’s authoritarian drift more starkly than almost any event of this decade. The cruelty is not imported. The violence is not foreign. It is familiar, bred in homes draped with MAGA flags, in churches that sanctify grievance, in organizations that equate outrage with virtue. The right wanted Kirk to be a martyr killed by liberals. What they got was Kirk consumed by his own ideological ecosystem, collateral damage in a civil war raging inside the house of conservatism.
They wanted a foreigner. They wanted a scapegoat. They wanted to hold someone else accountable, someone outside. But what they got instead was someone who looked like them. The mask slips. The scapegoat collapses. And the movement, starving, turns to suppression. Punishment. Silence.
The blood is theirs. The killer is theirs. The message is theirs.
https://www.facebook.com/ThePeskyLiberals
= new reply since forum marked as read
