Ditch the ads on Revolver and subscribe to ad-free… just $5 per month or $49 per year…

Donate HERE — NEWS FEED — FOLLOW US ON GAB — GETTR — TWITTER

Trannying children, it turns out, may finally have been a bridge too far. In an impressive display of political evolution, American patriots in 2022 are realizing that they don’t have to roll over and submit to every new sociocultural demand of the ruling class. Parents and lawmakers are fighting back loudly against efforts to transform their children into mutilated freak shows. Champions like Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh and Libs of TikTok are exposing hospitals’ involvement in the child mutilation racket, and they’re inspiring lawmakers to take action and get the practice banned.

But the left didn’t become culturally hegemonic without knowing how to win a fight. And they know the best maxim for victory is this: instead of winning an argument, it’s better to prevent the argument from happening at all.

And earlier this month, several recently-skinsuited institutions stepped up to do just that in a letter to Merrick Garland:

Dear Attorney General Garland,

On behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Children’s Hospital Association, collectively representing more than 270,000 physicians and more than 220 children’s hospitals across the country, we write to urge you to investigate the organizations, individuals, and entities coordinating, provoking, and carrying out bomb threats and threats of personal violence against children’s hospitals and physicians across the U.S.

[…]

These coordinated attacks threaten federally protected rights to health care for patients and their families. The attacks are rooted in an intentional campaign of disinformation, where a few high-profile users on social media share false and misleading information targeting individual physicians and hospitals, resulting in a rapid escalation of threats, harassment, and disruption of care across multiple jurisdictions. Our organizations have called on technology companies to do more to prevent this practice on digital platforms, and we now urge your office to take swift action to investigate and prosecute all organizations, individuals, and entities responsible.

Sometimes, the only way to win a cold civil war that you’re losing is to escalate.

The targets of the letters immediately realized their purpose.

Major medical institutions demanding that the DOJ arrest and imprison their critics represent a new low in how far the American regime will go to quash criticism. But this tactic did not come out of nowhere. Liberals and the left have been stealthily and subversively designing a justification for sweeping speech crackdowns for the past decade, under the label of “stochastic terrorism.”

Stochastic-what? Ten years ago, nobody had even heard of this. But now, it’s everywhere. From the homosexual magazine The Advocate:

As attacks on hospitals across the country providing gender-affirming care services to trans children increases, with the latest target being a hospital in Ohio, far-right Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson is adding fuel to the fire.

[…]

Carlson directs his viewers to engage in threatening behavior with a wink and a nod.

In what experts describe as an example of stochastic terrorism tactics, Carlson said on his program that hospital employees were criminals who shouldn’t be surprised they “are receiving threatening phone calls.” 

As the latest attack on children’s hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, right-wing social media accounts have targeted Akron Children’s Hospital, the Akron Beacon Journal reports.

From the woke academia scribblers at Inside Higher Ed:

A conservative commentator is pressuring the University of California, Santa Cruz, to respond to his complaints about a Ph.D. candidate and trans activist there. And he’s urging his more than one million followers to do the same, prompting concerns about targeted harassment of the graduate student, Eli Erlick.

Specifically, commentator Matt Walsh says he’s concerned that Erlick is a “confessed drug dealer” targeting children.

[…]

Erlick and some of her followers have accused Walsh of stochastic terrorism, an academic term used (in one sense) to describe the incitement of violence against a target, via mass media and with plausible deniability.

Boston Children’s Hospital, which Walsh has repeatedly accused of “mutilating” children who seek gender-affirming care, also released a statement this week saying that its workers are being harassed and facing threats of violence. Contrary to some reports, the hospital also said, it “does not perform genital surgeries as part of gender-affirming care on a patient under the age of 18.”

Walsh has countered the claim that he is a terrorist, arguing that sharing people’s publicly available contact information isn’t harassment and that criticizing someone isn’t terrorism. Yet Walsh’s actions toward Erlick do arguably fit into a larger pattern that groups including the American Association of University Professors call targeted harassment.

Basically, “stochastic terrorism” is the idea that, when somebody on the right criticizes somebody, they aren’t really just making a political argument. Instead, they are trying to “stoke hatred” in the expectation that some random third party will be “radicalized” and then commit political violence on their behalf.

In the modern sense of the phrase, “stochastic terrorism” was first coined by a left-wing blogger in 2011, who used it to describe the nefarious terrorist activities of, er, Sean Hannity:

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.  In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, and others do.

[…]

The stochastic terrorist is the person who is responsible for the incitement.  For example they go on radio or television and stir up hatred toward a particular person or group.

The random actor, or “lone wolf” as the term is used in law enforcement and intel, is the person who responds to the incitement by carrying out the violent or terrorist act against the target person or group.  For example they shoot someone or detonate a bomb.  While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. “given sufficient provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such”), the specific person and the specific act are not yet predictable.

But “stochastic terror” really took off as a favored term with the arrival of Donald Trump and the concomitant conclusion on the left that America was becoming a fascist dystopian hate-hellscape.

The El Paso Walmart shooting in summer 2019 caused the term to peak in the above Google Trends chart. Shooter Patrick Crusius denied any inspiration from a politician and said he was radicalized long before Trump even ran for president, but that did nothing to prevent commentators from announcing that, really, the shooting was all Orange Hitler’s fault. The Guardian:

The white supremacist who drove 10 hours to kill 22 innocent civilians at an El Paso Walmart last weekend was a Trump fan. He aimed to kill Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Just as the killer is responsible for his own actions, Trump is responsible for his ongoing incitement of racism and xenophobia. It is long past time for Americans to hold Trump accountable. Trump’s rhetoric, fitting what some researchers call “stochastic terrorism”, has emboldened white supremacists to violence.

Like other stochastic terrorists, Trump spews his incendiary rhetoric, licensing random others to take up the call into action. He whips up the emotions of his base, inculcating white fears of invasion. He calls Hispanics in America an “infestation”. At the same time as he targets people of color, he attacks journalists, and those he deems “the liberal elite”, claiming his own authority as the only solution to problems he has invented. Using tweets and rallies, Trump primes his political base to violent emotions, attitudes and actions.

In the age of Donald Trump, it was inevitable that a concept like “stochastic terrorism” would become popular. In fact, as far as half-baked political concepts go, stochastic terrorism may be the single idea most perfect for today’s liberal wannabe Bolsheviks.

First, as a political concept that involves novel new vocabulary, it appeals greatly to the “intellectual yet idiot” class of bullshit graduate degree holders, which represents a central pillar of the current progressive coalition. This class loves using new, confusing lingo to describe odd new concepts as a way to flex superiority over the less “informed” and less up-to-date. “Stochastic terrorism” functions quite similarly to being able to explain what a microaggression is or being able to name-drop the “emoluments clause.” One of the biggest fans of the term, for instance, is Juliette Kayyem, a former Obama appointee turned “senior lecturer in international security” at the Harvard Kennedy School. Kayyem has built half a career out of, essentially, whining that people she doesn’t agree with are actually terrorists when they say things that make her mad.

Second, the term channels the left’s post-2016 love affair with the national security state. It’s hardly surprising that a concept with such a strong natsec veneer rose to prominence during the same period the left learned to venerate the CIA, and some journalists became full-blown espionage fangirls. “Stochastic terrorism” fits in with “Kompromat” or “HUMINT” or calling Trump a Russian “asset.” It’s intellectualism for the crowd that embraced Havana Syndrome and wrote erotic Robert Mueller fanfiction.

Third, the concept perfectly flows from being a personal attack to being a legal one. The implicit claim behind every complaint about stochastic terror is that dissident speech isn’t really speech, and therefore it doesn’t really deserve protection, because conservatives, or anyone liberals don’t like, harbor a hidden inner desire to inspire violent attacks. Any complaint about the liberals or, more importantly, the Regime, in any venue, can now be dressed up as “violent” speech deserving no constitutional protection.

Recently, the extremist left-wing YouTube program The Young Turks called for banning Tucker Carlson from television because of his “stochastic terrorism.”

It is all a classic use of euphemism to warp what is going on for political ends. Tucker Carlson is a “bully” engaged in “stochastic terrorism,” while the Regime has pet “journalists” who “bring accountability.” And the special magic of this new label is that it is unlimited in scope. It justifies any kind of censorship of anything remotely controversial, with no way to ever disprove an allegation. If you spoke on a controversial topic, and then anyone, anywhere on this planet of 8 billion, became “radicalized” and committed a crime, then you can be labeled a “stochastic” terrorist without any proof at all of foreknowledge, communication, or intent. The term is, in essence, a thought-terminating cliché; any and all crimethink can be shut down with a single point and shriek that the speaker is a “stochastic terrorist.”

The final aspect of stochastic terrorism, the one that truly makes it perfect for the modern ruling class, is that the concept is founded entirely on projection. There is absolutely zero evidence that Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson have ever made a public statement for the purpose of “inciting violence.” The practice of decentralized violence as a tool of political intimidation is entirely limited to the left and is used today by the regime to destroy its enemies.

The most genuine recent example of “stochastic” terror was the targeting of Supreme Court justices before and after the Dobbs decision reversing Roe v. Wade earlier this year.

But first, remember Chuck Schumer’s little threat to Brett Kavanaugh?

As soon as a draft version of the Dobs ruling came out in May, pro-abortion activists heeded Chuck Schumer’s call and quickly started posting the justices’ home addresses online. On Reddit, a thread sharing the home addresses of four justices collected more than 25,000 upvotes.

In contrast to merely naming a person or organization responsible for a policy, the clear purpose of publicizing a home address is to enable targeted harassment and even potential assassination.

Well, surprise, surprise. Given the rhetoric surrounding the Supreme Court and the abortion ruling, it was unsurprising when one person decided things did need to go further.

NBC News:

An armed man was arrested overnight near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after he called 911 on himself, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

Officials say the man, identified as Nicholas John Roske, 26, was armed with a handgun, a knife, pepper spray and burglary tools. He was stopped a block from the justice’s house. And when police detained him, he said he was there to kill Kavanaugh, the officials said.

[…]

He is alleged to have told investigators that he’d decided to target Kavanaugh because he was angry about the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and about the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. He said he thought Kavanaugh would loosen gun laws. Roske said he’d planned to kill the justice and then himself, the complaint said.

A search of his backpack and suitcase showed he was carrying a “black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazine and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light, duct tape” and other items.

That’s not the only example from this year. Despite Emmett Till being murdered closer to the Spanish-American War than to the present day, the New York Times and other publications have continued to report “developments” in this story with breathless coverage. Treating Till’s murder as one of the only crimes worth remembering has predictably driven a deranged response from the public.

This culminated over the summer when a lynch mob raided a nursing home in an effort to hunt down and “confront” Till’s now-senile octogenarian accuser, Carolyn Bryant.

A mob hunting for Carolyn Bryant at a nursing home

Finding “lone wolf” acts of violence motivated by shrill left-wing political narratives is trivially easy. Just a few weeks ago, North Dakota’s Shannon Brandt murdered a teenager with his truck, apparently because he believed he was part of a “Republican extremist group.” The 2017 Congressional baseball shooting was perpetrated by a 66-year-old man, apparently radicalized by MSNBC-tier anti-Trump rhetoric.

Joe Biden—Stochastic Terrorist-in-Chief?—has recently taken to demonizing and vilifying tens of millions of “MAGA Republicans” as the supreme evil in the nation and a very real threat to the Republic.

But if any variety of violence qualifies as random-yet-predictable enough to be labeled “stochastic,” it’s the violent outbursts of men motivated by the anti-white and anti-police propaganda of BLM and America’s broader “racial justice” movement. Darrell Brooks, who murdered six by driving his SUV into a Christmas parade in Waukesha, made unhinged posts calling for violence against white people during the Summer of Floyd. Micah Johnson, who mowed down five police officers in Dallas in 2016, was furious over the phony epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men. And of course, every predictably destructive American race riot, from Minneapolis to Baltimore to Ferguson to Kenosha, is also predictably sparked by the rhetoric of BLM and its enablers.

Four of the nation’s most prominent stochastic terrorists?
S

Of course, the brilliance of the left’s adoption of “stochastic terrorism” as a concept is that it will never be applied with any kind of consistency or good faith. People within the Overton window of the regime’s politics will never be silenced or punished, no matter how repulsive or inflammatory their behavior. No BLM agitators have ever been accused of “stochastic terrorism” for levying false racism allegations against police, even though those lies have led directly to massive riots and several killing sprees. No Twitter bluecheck will ever be labeled a terrorist for saying we should “punch Nazis” or even shoot them.

Instead, “stochastic terrorism” is the perfect culmination of the left’s reasoning on politics: all dissenting speech is violence, but when they use violence, it is only speech.

Vladimir Lenin, way back in October of 1921, in a speech to the second All-Russian Congress of Political Education Departments, stated that, “The whole question is: who will overtake whom?” Joseph Stalin later stated that ‘we live by the formula of Lenin: kto-kovo: will we knock them, the capitalists, flat and give them (as Lenin expresses it) the final, decisive battle, or will they knock us flat?’ The Bolsheviks were single-mindedly fixated on winning an existential class struggle between the workers and the supposed “capitalists”—they were determined to exterminate their political opposition for fear it would exterminate them.

Who/whom—will overtake whom? For the liberal left, globalists, and the regime, this is the fundamental question that stochastic terrorism answers: they, our political opposition, are trying to kill us all with terrorism; therefore, we have to exterminate them before they exterminate us.

In this context, perhaps we can all understand the recent actions of Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice, who have held political prisoners in the D.C. gulag for nearly two years without trial in the most horrifying conditions, raided the private compound of a former president, seized the cell phone of a sitting member of Congress, and arrested and thrown the book at eleven Christians who were peacefully protesting abortion—including an 87-year-old female concentration camp survivor.

Will American patriots, from the lowliest grassroots activist to the highest-ranking politician, recognize what’s at stake, organize, and put a political end to this nascent exterminationist Bolshevik threat? Or will we be seeing you all in the gulags?

Ditch the ads on Revolver and Subscribe to ad-free… just $5 per month or $49 per year…

Donate HERE — NEWS FEED — FOLLOW US ON GAB — GETTR — TWITTER