UPDATE: See at the bottom of this post. Plus this about the released manifesto of the Tranny who killed three little kids and three adults in her old school.
This is not a surprise. Last year I pointed to another survey that showed a massive increase among younger people approving when asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of assassinating a politician”?
Nearly half of Democrat men under the age of 50 (44 %) approved, as did 34% of Younger Republican Men, 40% of Younger Republican Woman, and 32% of Younger Democrat Woman.
Further back in time I wrote two articles that dealt with offshoots of this environment – Stochastic Terrorism and Assassinations and Stochastic terrorism and S. 230
Stochastic refers to a modeling approach using random probability distribution to try and make predictions based on massive amounts of seemingly random data. That now includes the likelihood of terrorism being spawned out of massive amounts of online speech. The theory is that although you might not be able to link any particular incident of terrorism to what is said in online platforms, including Social Media sites, you can make a stochastic prediction; with enough speech pushing certain ideas you can predict a certain number of terrorist incidents based on those ideas.
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.
Therefore it’s entirely logical and scientific to shut down such online speech, which is what my second article dealt with, looking at efforts by the Left in to constrain free speech in online forums, which was where the Section 230 part of the Communications Decency Act, and of course the focus since 2020 was all that horrible, nasty Right-Wing speech.
But as I pointed out in the first article all of this was basically just the Left trying to apply a ScientificTM gloss over the same claims that Democrats had been making since at least the days of blaming Sarah Palin’s “target map” in 2011 for the attempted assassination of Arizona Democrat Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. It was obvious that the goal was not to “lower the temperatures” or “reduce violence” but to damage the GOP in general and specifically on the matter of gun control, and Palin especially who was still deemed to be a great populist threat after her impact in 2008 and possibly in 2012 (in the end she would be the precursor for Donald Trump).
Stochastic Terrorism is a truly clever piece of rhetoric that one can admire for its pure propagandistic potency.… the goal is not to establish the idea of Stochastic Terrorism and hold all people up to new, higher, standards but to establish and maintain rhetorical asymmetry.
As Charlie Kirk goes on to say about that survey (conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab):
The left is being whipped into a violent frenzy. Any setback, whether losing an election or losing a court case, justifies a maximally violent response. This is the natural outgrowth of left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem for years on end. The cowardice of local prosecutors and school officials have turned the left into a ticking time bomb.
Also the cowardice of the Democrat Party as it looks to any sector of society that might help it in win elections in 2026 and 2028.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that “Stochastic Terrorism” will now vanish from the vocabulary of the Left and dumped down the memory hole.
Worse than partisanship gone insane is the thought that darker and more fundamental issues underlie all this:
Data like these raise, I think, the question whether the United States has a future as a united country. Our schools are so terrible, our culture is so depraved, our “news” media are so pathetic, that what the linked report describes as an “assassination culture” has taken hold of one our major parties. Is there, any longer, a basis on which liberals and conservatives can collaborate, in good faith, in governing a democracy?
I am not at all sure the answer to that question is Yes.
Now we know why the Nashville Police and the FBI tried so hard to cover up the motives of Audrey Hale, after she committed mass murder, by refusing to release her “manifesto” and even going after a whistleblower who leaked some of it to social media sources. As Andy Ngo (himself a gay man) summarises:
The writings provide clear statements Hale was an autistic leftist trans violent extremist, having extreme hatred for whites, America and cisgender society.
“I’d like to dispose my vagina.”
“Female pronouns make me feel like I wanna die.”
“I hate being in a woman’s body. Need to die.”
“Kill all the white kids. Kill my own race.”
“Every white person who lived and died, I hate you all”
“I have to kill so I can be remembered in the most horrific way possible that no one can ever forget.”
Hale’s rants reflect many common views among the far-left. They have been sympathetic to Hale, honoring her as a victim days after the mass killing.
No Minister 
The shooting incident at the rally in Butler Pa was so botched it raises questions as to was it really an assassination attempt. The security lapses, the immaturity and capability of the now dead shooter, it had to be a totally random incident. Multiple shots at a range of between 120 and 150 yards using an AR15 style rifle, a stationary target who only survived due to turning his head away when the closest bullet hit Trumps ear ear fired from a prone position on an exposed rooftop.
The whole incident has a note of strange about it.
So much rather incontrovertible about it in clearly identifiable activity from many corroborating sources, I give myself an uppercut when ever I review it.
I know what you mean, but am certain that Hanlon’s Razor applies once again.
I’m all but certain it was an op by the deep state, but if the shooter had meant to miss, he wouldn’t have hit Trump in the ear, or murdered Corey Comperatore.