Diddler on the Roof

Of course Thomas Matthew Crooks thought he was transgender and had a furry fetish...

We’ve learned more in the past week about Thomas Matthew Crooks—the weird little prick who tried to kill Donald Trump—than in the past 17 months, and it’s almost entirely thanks to the efforts of one man: Tucker Carlson.

Tucker released a 30-minute documentary on X last week that exploded the official narrative about Crooks, as told to us by those ever-so-reliable, oh-so-trustworthy men in black at the Federal Bureau of Obfuscation… sorry, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI told the public and Congress that Crooks was a “virtual ghost online with no presence at all.” They said Crooks was apolitical, and that no clear motive for his attempt on Donald Trump’s life was forthcoming. Crooks had no history of violence either, apparently.

All of this was lies—or selective presentation or omission or maybe it was plain old incompetence and they just couldn’t get their facts straight; although I seriously doubt that. Whatever it was, we know the outcome. For 17 months, the story died. Someone tried to blow Donald Trump’s head off on stage, for the whole word to see, and came within millimeters of doing it—the biggest fucking story in the world—and there was simply nothing to say, nothing to report, no leads to be followed, no conclusions to be drawn.

Until now.

If you haven’t already, go to X and watch the documentary for yourself. It’s vintage Tucker, a reminder of why he’s still an essential voice on the American right, even if you don’t like those little tobacco pouches or agree with everyone he interviews—and, frankly, why the hell should you?

Today, another puzzle piece landed in our laps. It’s something Tucker didn’t mention in the documentary, but that doesn’t make it supplemental in any way. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Thomas Matthew Crooks had gender dysphoria and a hard-on for furries.

Somewhat buried in a New York Post article about Crooks is the revelation that he had an account on the fetish-art website DeviantArt—where people post drawings of humanoid wolves doing unspeakable things to each other—and referred to himself as a they/them.

As funny as it might sound, this could explain everything; or rather, it could answer two vital questions Tucker raised but didn’t answer.

First of all, the tranny revelation could explain why Thomas Matthew Crooks changed his tune so dramatically between the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020. As Tucker showed using evidence from comments left by Crooks on YouTube videos, the pimple-faced would-be assassin went from preaching the gospel of “behead all libtards” to calling Donald Trump a stupid idiot at the head of a cult of “brainwashed, dumb and racist” supporters. That’s quite the turnaround, and it happened in a matter of a few months.

Clearly, what we need is some kind of trigger, and obviously it has to be something super-mundane. People don’t go 180 on their political views when their hamster dies or another month passes without gameplay footage of the new Grand Theft Auto.

Could Thomas Matthew Crooks have “discovered,” suddenly, that he was “non-binary” and sexually attracted to anthropomorphic canines? Could this have set him off along the path to wanting to kill Donald Trump?

Yes and yes again.

We saw such a Damascene moment in the case of Aaron Bushnell, the poor deluded fool who set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in protest against the war in Gaza. His Reddit-posting history reveals that within a matter of years, probably months actually, he went from an earnest patriotic Christian to a self-hating ethnomasochist who believed the only way to expunge the Original Sin of being born a white male American was to offer his life for the cause of Turd World liberation. In Bushnell’s case, the trigger appears to have been realising he was actually a woman.

Something similar also happened to Tyler Robinson, the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk, who had a transgender boyfriend and a furry obsession too. I’ll come back to him later.

The second question. This concerns whether Crooks was, in some sense, recruited or indoctrinated by others, and whether there could be a link to particular organizations or even to government agencies.