Following the murders of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska, I’ve reflected on the environment that made such tragedies possible. Beyond morality, psychology, and polarization, one concept stands out: the deliberate use of rhetoric and narrative to create the conditions for violence. This phenomenon is known as stochastic terrorism. It explains how public figures can be […]
Following the murders of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska, I’ve reflected on the environment that made such tragedies possible. Beyond morality, psychology, and polarization, one concept stands out: the deliberate use of rhetoric and narrative to create the conditions for violence.
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.”
This tactic is not new. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals advised activists to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” By isolating opponents and making them the embodiment of all that is wrong, political opposition is transformed into moral condemnation. Once a person is no longer seen as a fellow citizen but as an existential enemy, violence becomes predictable.
That is why politicians, media figures, and influencers who engage in reckless rhetoric often bear responsibility, even when they deny it. We’ve heard elected officials and commentators call Trump and his supporters “fascists,” “racists,” and even liken them to Hitler. President Biden declared that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described Trump as “echoing the words of Adolf Hitler.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris agreed when asked if Trump was a fascist. To a mentally unstable person, this kind of rhetoric can sound like a call to action, including assassination.
The media often amplifies these frames. Headlines and commentary have portrayed Trump, Kirk, and others not as legitimate voices in democratic debate but as existential dangers. Influencers on social media went further, branding them “white supremacists” and “enemies of democracy.” None of them issued a direct order, but that is precisely how stochastic terrorism works: relentless demonization strips away humanity until a lone actor decides violence is justified. When the inevitable happens, politicians claim ignorance, journalists insist they were “just reporting,” and influencers shrug that they were “just sharing an opinion.” Plausible deniability becomes a shield for incitement.
Equally telling is what happened after Kirk’s murder. Many on the left did not grieve, condemn, or even stay silent. They cheered. Social media was filled with comments mocking his death, portraying it as deserved, or celebrating it as a victory for “justice.” This is the second half of stochastic terrorism: normalization. The rhetoric primes the act, the assassin pulls the trigger, and the public reaction completes the circle.
The same cycle appeared after Iryna Zarutska’s death, but not through open celebration. Instead, it came through silence. Major media outlets delayed coverage of her murder for weeks, an omission that carried its own message. That seemingly intentional and agenda-driven silence amounted to tacit approval, suggesting her life was not worth mourning. In the framework of stochastic terrorism, such selective inattention normalizes violence by reducing its moral weight and reinforcing polarization. Just as cheering validates killing, ignoring it can send the same corrosive signal.
The murders of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska remind us that words are never harmless abstractions. They shape public perception, erode legitimacy, and set the stage for violence though not through direct orders, but by cultivating an atmosphere where violence becomes probable and socially rewarded.
If we are to honor their memory, we must recognize that free speech is not a license to relentlessly dehumanize opponents until their deaths are cheered or ignored. The battle against stochastic terrorism is not fought with censorship but with accountability, moral clarity, and the courage to call out reckless rhetoric wherever it appears. A healthy republic demands debate, not demonization; persuasion, not persecution. If America cannot relearn that lesson, words will continue to become weapons, and more lives will be shattered by the violence that follows.