Is This the Rights' Fight? Wrong Turn on Right 2: Charlie Kirk Killing, Antifa Myths & Disinformation

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique law practice specializing in national security. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman examines the fallout from Charlie Kirk’s assassination, emphasizing the still-unclear motive and the pattern of online radicalization among young men on platforms like Discord. She cautions against collapsing Antifa, sovereign-citizen rhetoric, and broader left–right extremism into a single narrative, and criticizes memorial rhetoric that drifted into conspiratorial tropes. Tsukerman urges a rule-of-law response, de-escalation, and evidence-based reporting, rather than martyrdom politics. Her analysis situates the case within a larger ecosystem of disinformation, opportunism, and grievance amplification that accelerates real-world risk.

Interview conducted September 26, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, round two of “right fight, wrong turn.” This one was sparked by the assassination of Charlie Kirk by Tyler Robinson, age 22—an ongoing legal case. The reactions were swift. Jimmy Campbell was fired, then reinstated three days later. There are now proposals to erect statues of Charlie Kirk as a martyr for the MAGA cause. This is more than just a Turning Point USA moment—it is a national Turning Point moment. What are your thoughts on the murder and the reactions?

Irina Tsukerman: We still do not know why Tyler Robinson committed the crime he did. There has been speculation about whether he aligned with the Groypers or with Antifa. Antifa is not a centralized organization but rather a loose coalition of extremists who claim to fight fascism. Some are radical left-wing activists, not consistently opposing authoritarianism. Many became visible during the George Floyd protests and the COVID era, especially in Portland—defying authority, calling for the defunding of the police, building enclaves of resistance, and acting as more militant versions of Occupy Wall Street, but without a coherent philosophy beyond anarchism and nihilism.

It is unclear where Robinson fell. He reportedly admired Nick Fuentes’s followers at one point, but later showed interest in more left-wing groups. He was in a relationship with a transgender individual, though it is uncertain whether that factored into his attack on Charlie Kirk. He allegedly inscribed political slogans on his weapon, but much remains unknown. What is clear is that he spent a significant amount of time on Discord, a platform where many radicalized individuals gather to share grievances and engage in illicit activities.

Jacobsen: You mentioned radicalized individuals. Is it fair to say they are primarily young men?

Tsukerman: Very fair. There are exceptions, but the trend skews heavily toward young men. Consider Jack Teixeira, the U.S. airman who leaked classified documents on Discord—he was immersed in that same environment. Robinson fits the broader pattern of young men drawn to radical forums.

He was not an incel, since he was in a relationship, and we do not know if he was a misogynist. However, we do know he had fringe interests, such as the furry community, and was reportedly obsessed with pornography. He spent significant amounts of time consuming disturbing content, which likely worsened his psychological instability and fueled violent, nihilistic tendencies.

As for Charlie Kirk, he was not just an activist; he was deeply embedded in a political movement. Tucker Carlson was reportedly one of his mentors, having known him since the age of 18, and had donated $1 million to his organization. Carlson became one of the most influential voices shaping Kirk in recent years, particularly in the years leading up to his death. Carlson was a fixture at group events, pushed J.D. Vance’s rise to the vice presidency, appeared on Kirk’s memorial broadcast, and gave a controversial speech at the memorial itself.

At least 200,000 people attended the memorial speech. Tucker Carlson’s address included a reference to “hummus eaters” being responsible for the killing of Jesus. That was strange on multiple levels. Historically, hummus recipes first appeared in Egypt, centuries after they were introduced in Roman Judea, not in the region where Roman authorities executed Jesus. They certainly were not eating hummus. The reference was clearly meant to target Jews. Carlson later attempted to clarify by claiming he meant the Pharisees, but if that had been his intention, he could have stated it directly. Anyone familiar with scripture would know who the Pharisees were.

The remarks sparked outrage in the Jewish community, drawing comparisons to classic antisemitic tropes from church history and even to Mel Gibson’s controversies. More right-wing Christians, especially those leaning toward Christian nationalism, defended Carlson, claiming nothing was wrong with his statement and arguing that even Saint Paul’s actions could be seen as antisemitic. That criticism of Paul—that he created hostility toward Jews to unify early Christianity—has been made by scholars. However, Carlson showed no such theological nuance. His words reflected crude tropes, not informed debate about Christian origins.

More disturbing than the “hummus” remark was that Carlson seemed to compare Charlie Kirk to Jesus. That kind of messianic framing is dangerous. It fed into J.D. Vance’s rhetoric, where he suggested that “they” killed Kirk, not Tyler Robinson alone. “They” being the political left, supposedly conspiring together. Despite investigations uncovering no evidence of co-conspirators, this idea persisted. Figures like Stephen Miller claimed the entire Democratic Party should be seen as a domestic terrorist organization. Donald Trump went so far as to designate Antifa as a terrorist group, despite lacking the legal authority and despite Antifa not having a formal organizational structure.

Meanwhile, voices on both the far right and far left have blurred Antifa’s identity. Some equate it with violent groups that created resistance enclaves in Seattle and Portland. In reality, antifascist movements trace back to communist parties in Germany and the Soviet Union, including the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in the USSR. The legacy is complex, but conflation serves today’s political agendas more than historical accuracy.

The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, which consisted of Jewish communists opposed to the Nazis, met an unfortunate end under Stalin. Many people today do not know this history or where the term “Antifa” actually comes from. It has since been misused, even by those who first adopted it. The original struggle was essentially a political battle between communists and Nazis, not a principled fight against authoritarianism in all forms. Now the label has been adapted by radical activists, often violent, who use it without understanding the history.

This failure to distinguish between the original meaning and today’s usage has fueled conflations in the aftermath of Kirk’s death. In response, we are seeing proposals such as minting 400,000 silver dollars with his face and renaming local streets in his honour. Some municipalities have adopted these measures, but nothing on a large national scale. His wife appears to be stepping into a leadership role at Turning Point, but whether she is the face of the entire “Kirkian movement” is another question. More likely, Carlson and a broader group of conservative and pro-Trump voices, now filling Kirk’s speaking slots on campuses, will become the public face of the organization.

One overlooked point is that Trump reportedly said he thought Kirk could one day become president. The long-term strategy behind funding and grooming his organization is to prepare him for political office. When Kirk is compared to political martyrs like Martin Luther King Jr. or John and Robert Kennedy, the implication is that he might have been groomed for leadership of the conservative movement—or even for the presidency. While Kirk was a highly successful organizer and activist, he did not articulate a distinct political philosophy in the manner of someone like William F. Buckley. Still, his trajectory could have mirrored Barack Obama’s path from community organizer to national office.

Jacobsen: All right, enjoy your flight.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.