J.R. Dunn
"There is a concept called “” in which overheated, extreme rhetoric, or actions by establishment figures in politics, media, or the law, create a climate in which unbalanced members of the public — the mentally ill, the obsessive, the fanatical — are encouraged to carry out atrocious acts that might never have occurred otherwise. It’s a form of terrorism that seems to arise spontaneously and mysteriously out of nowhere, but in fact is the direct result of demagoguery by supposedly uninvolved public figures." . . .
"The Dems have always been adept at playing dirty. There is scarcely a single epoch of American politics since 1828 that doesn’t feature a titanically corrupt Democrat capable of vast crimes committed in order to remain in power and make a profit doing so. But old-time Dems knew there were limits. You didn’t try to steal a presidential election. You didn’t undermine the foundations of the system itself. You didn’t try to annihilate the opposition. You gave lip service to the verities and generally tried to project a front of high-minded virtue, giving lip service to established values even as you defied them.
"In recent decades, though, Democrats have dumped all ethical pretenses in favor of utilizing any tactic, any strategy, to gain and maintain power, and to squeeze out every last dime and every last privilege, no matter what the cost to anybody else.
"The entry of ideology into everyday politics has rotted everything it touched. A system infected by it is ruined and best destroyed in hopes of protecting everything else. It could be any ideology—right, left, center—the effect is the same. But America has suffered the grave misfortune of contracting possibly the worst form: leftism, that is, socialism based on the Marxist dialectic.
"As is true of all previous cases—the USSR, Red China, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Cuba, Nicaragua—the key element is the control of everything, whether it’s political in the accepted sense or not (“the personal is the political” is one of the root concepts here). Everything outside of the ideological structure is a target, against which any tactic can be justified.
"Richard Daley knew where to stop. Zohran Mamdani does not.
"There’s no question that the Dems will eventually go over the edge. It’s going to happen. It’s baked into the very process of adapting leftism. The only questions are “when” and “what do we do about it?” . .
This next is what I feel is the key point of which must be fought with vigor and dedication:.
. . ."There is a concept called “stochastic terrorism,” in which overheated, extreme rhetoric, or actions by establishment figures in politics, media, or the law, create a climate in which unbalanced members of the public — the mentally ill, the obsessive, the fanatical — are encouraged to carry out atrocious acts that might never have occurred otherwise. It’s a form of terrorism that seems to arise spontaneously and mysteriously out of nowhere, but in fact is the direct result of demagoguery by supposedly uninvolved public figures.
"It’ll come as no surprise that most of the stochastic terrorists on record have emerged from the Left. James Hodgkinson, Stephen Paddock, Thomas Crook, Luigi Mangione, and Tyler Robinson can serve as examples. Note that many of these cases involve lots of head-scratching in the media — and even in law enforcement — as t.o the “motives” of the shooter. Note also that many of them are brushed off the headlines in short order, becoming back-page items, and sometimes not even that" . . .
Stochastic Terrorism: When Words Become Weapons . . . "This phenomenon is known as stochastic terrorism. It explains how public figures can be demonized until their deaths are not only foreseeable but, in some circles, celebrated. It is the bridge between words and bloodshed, where cultural cues and political messaging prime unstable individuals to commit atrocities while sympathizers applaud from the sidelines."Scholars have outlined how this process works. Molly Amman and J. Reid Meloy (2021) wrote that stochastic terrorism “creates a climate in which violence against a target becomes not only possible but probable, and the social reaction afterward can serve as reinforcement for future acts.” James Angove (2024) added that “the impact…lies not only in the initial act but in its reception; where public or political communities legitimize the violence, the cycle is sustained.” Kurt Braddock explained that when leaders portray opponents as existential threats, “somebody will” commit violence, especially if such acts are later celebrated online. Rachel Kleinfeld warned that violence spreads when communities excuse or valorize it. In other words, both the rhetoric before and the reaction after are what complete the cycle."
"The assassination of Charlie Kirk fits this model. For years, left-wing activists, media voices, and cultural influencers portrayed him not as a man with political disagreements but as a racist, a fascist, and a danger to democracy itself. That constant delegitimization laid the groundwork for violence. No one had to issue an explicit order; the endless drumbeat of vilification made it inevitable that someone would see his murder as “necessary.” . . .
