The USA Today believes Chaya Raichik is a dangerous person. Raichik is the founder and operator of “Libs of TikTok,” the hugely influential Twitter account (I still refuse to call it “X”) which has just been given a frontpage profile. According to the paper, whenever Raichik makes a post, “threats increasingly follow.” The report highlights several cases in which hospitals and schools have been victimized.
Since August 21, Media Matters tallied and USA Today confirmed, there have been at least 25 bomb threats against schools, libraries, school administration buildings and universities after Libs of TikTok posts.
Even though Raichik claims to have condemned violence more than a dozen times during the interview, the article only makes one passing mention. Most of Raichik’s work involves reposting what other people have already put out there. Since I’ve followed the account since it started, I’ll give my own confirmation to that. Still, the newspaper correctly points out that few if any of her posts come without commentary. What it fails to point out is that Raichik is well within her right to offer as much. As it relates to Gender Ideology, she is firmly opposed, as plenty of others are.
LISTEN TO IT:
Although Raichik does admit to making “calls to action,” those calls entail nothing more than tagging accounts and sharing stories. As she says, that “is nowhere near telling people to call in bomb threats.” All liberty-minded folks would agree with her on that. If someone reads or watches something, and then decides to call up and make a threat, that is on them.
That perspective is not shared by others. The right of gender critics to take such a stance is a de facto act of oppression. Because if the tide does change, and clinics become hesitant to dole out chemicals and surgeries, those confused children will soon kill themselves. After all, we’re dealing with prisoners, trapped not only inside of this intolerant society, but inside their very own bodies. How many options do they really have? Prisoners rebel, and most wars are fought over some idea of liberation.
Helpful here is a big term that’s recently been pushed into the public discourse: Stochastic Terrorism. Stochastic is defined as randomly determined. An article on Substack gives some background, along with a memory refresher. The term was first used in the aftermath of Jared Loughner’s 2011 murderous rampage in Phoenix. Sarah Palin was soon blamed for inciting Loughner, because she had put out a map with what appeared to be crosshairs showing potential “targets” of Democrats who were supporting Obama’s healthcare bill.
The exact origin of the term remains a bit unclear, but the Substack article provides a definition. Stochastic Terrorism is “the use of mass communication to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.” The theory goes that a group routinely demonized will eventually endure acts of aggression. As follows, people like Raichik are the ones who sound the reveille. With their signal, scores of anonymous internet trolls quickly morph into lone wolf terrorists.
But this discussion of Hate Speech always leaves behind a sense of bamboozlement. There are people from all sides of the political spectrum who have trained in the crude arts of demonization. Why, you’d also have to be trained in the art of lying to suggest otherwise. When your side does the demonizing, it’s reprehensible. When our side does the demonizing, it’s a part of social justice.
Who then is seeking liberation? And who stands on the wall, manning the guns? Denying “transkids” access to “gender affirming health care” (quotes very much deliberate) – they say – is something very close to violence. Saying “trans people don’t exist” – a statement based on your acknowledgement that one cannot change their sex – is the scene of Thanos snapping his fingers, the instantaneous erasure of an entire population. Purple and orange persons do not exist! Here comes the Association for the Advancement of Purple and Orange Persons!
We can always find more prisoners, followed closely by their liberators. Republican Steve Scalise was the victim of a shooting attack in 2017. The shooter, James Hodgkins, was apparently enraged at the way in which Scalise had voted on a recent healthcare bill. And what could happen to someone who doesn’t have access to healthcare? That’s right, they might die.
Antiabortion activists see abortion as genocide. That’s hundreds of thousands of dead babies, every year. Mr. Rudolph, anyone? And let’s not forget that even if those preborn make it outside the womb, they’ll still be leaving behind their own carbon footprint, which results not only in dead people, but a dead planet.
Then come the unvaccinated, those unthoughtful masses who spread disease. What happens to your neighbor, or your kid’s classmate? Correct again: they die.
People at the border who aren’t allowed into the country? Dead. Walking into a gunstore and buying a giant firearm? More death. And should I give insult to your faith or ethnicity? Well, we’ll leave it there.
As we can see, the aspiring liberator has a lot of terrorizing to do. Fortunately, the liberating terrorist, like the homegrown activist, is by nature inerrant. Telling them they might be wrong could get yourself put onto a list. Thus, Audrey Hale knew she was in the right when gunning down 6 people, just as I’m in the right when referring to the killer as a “she.”
The journal/manifesto of this tranny-terrorist had been withheld from the public. Thankfully, Steven Crowder found himself a scoop, leaking the journal/manifesto, or at least portions of it (and on the same day of the USAToday profile). Even with this information, the killer’s motives remain somewhat unclear. Hale states that she wanted to “kill all you little crackers,” those with “privileges” who “go to private fancy schools.” (“Mop yellow hair”? I really feel targeted.) My guess would be that she, even as a white person, hated white people. One wonders what content she had been consuming. Perhaps we should take a walk through a college campus, or turn on MSNBC.
If only we could work out these differences in a civil manner. But then these are not contretemps. They are life and death struggles for freedom and survival. Free Speech and open discussion have become increasingly irrelevant, with history showing that players on both the Left and the Right have made their exceptions. So we’ll keep going on, waiting for more eyes to start glowing red, challenging the rhetoric, if not always the facts, and all the while searching in vain for something in which to unite us.
Indictments from the Convicted
Staying ON During the Great Reset
