The weaponization of language continues with a frightening new term

Do you stand outside abortion mills, praying for intercession or singing hymns? Or do you possibly minister to the mothers as they transport their unborn to the medical gallows?

Do you oppose the physical and physiological mutilation of children at Big Pharma “gender” centers?

Do you believe that schools should teach the basics, rather than cultural Marxism and deviant sexual ideology?

Do you maybe, just maybe, believe the government could be lying about “official” narratives?

Odds are, you’re probably a “terrorist.”

Enter a novel, and rather ingenious anonym: “stochastic terrorism.”

We’ve seen this all before: the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror. No clear identification of the enemy means the enemy can be whatever (or whoever) at any given moment in time. There can never be an end to the conflict, because how can you defeat an ambiguous enemy? Accepting crusades against vague foes is a clear indicator that we are marching towards a tyrannical government.

It makes me think of 1984’s Winston, as he sat atop the chute that led to the incinerator — nicknamed the Memory Hole if you recall — where he contemplated his role in ever-changing “history.” Oceania’s enemy was fluid, and based on the whims of the Party, but because Winston burned every piece of documentation, the enemy du jour had always been the enemy.

A war on “poverty” dictates that as long as there is poverty, there’s justification for massive welfare programs, even as they bankrupt an entire nation. A war on “drugs” means federal agencies have license to expand and trample the Constitution — after all, you don’t want cartels and drug dealers hurting children do you? And the war on “terror” was the culmination, nicely packaged in the ironically-named Patriot Act — but it seems to have come full circle. Initially our government waged a war against foreign “enemies” in Iraq and Afghanistan, but now it seems to be waging a war against us. Don’t forget, a “stated belief” in the Second Amendment can earn you the label “Militia Violent Extremist”. Whatever would we do without the Biden DOJ?

“Stochastic” simply means ‘randomly determined’, and in the context of “stochastic terrorism”, it means that anyone is capable of being a terroristic threat. Conservative commentator Matt Walsh has been providing the public with groundbreaking exposés regarding the war against children, and recently identified some of the most egregious perpetrators. In one instance, Walsh complained to a university who employed a notorious offender, and urged his listeners to do the same. In response, enlightened and morally-superior academics wrote:

Erlick [perpetrator] 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 plausible deniability [emphasis added].

In layman’s terms: Someone is a stochastic terrorist if they buck the radical left agenda, expose it, and call out the racketeers (even though they dont actually call for violence). Hey, to a snowflake, public pressure and accountability can be quite violent, so cut the babies some slack.

Terms like “stochastic terrorism” is at the very root of it, social conditioning, and it won’t be very long until “stochastic” terrorism evolves into ‘parental’ terrorism, or ‘Christian’ terrorism, or ‘American’ terrorism, or any other word to describe those against the Marxist forces afoot. And just like Winston, we will forget the current enemy was ever anything but the current enemy.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.

If you experience technical problems, please write to