Democrat Attitudes and Domestic Terrorism

Democrat Party leaders and donors have to be held legally responsible for domestic terrorism they have funded, excused and encouraged.

The other day the extremely popular and influential online commentator Libs of Tik Tok (Chaya Raichik) shared a meme regarding polling on Democrat voter attitudes that I think demands some serious attention. The meme she shared was this one:

Before we talk about the information contained in this meme, let’s discuss the sources. First, Libs of Tik Tok, who I’m sure many of you are familiar with and whose posts and tweets you have probably shared. The current main Libs of Tik Tok account on X has over 4 million followers, her Instagram account also has around half a million followers. She has however been permanently banned from Tik Tok.

The Libs of Tik Tok account on Twitter/X took its current name in 2021, although Raichik was posting under a different name before that. Raichik perfected a common ‘culture wars’ satirical device, which is to scour the online social media commentary of opponents and pick out their most extreme and bizarre statements. Libs of Tik Tok would then share these with commentary, essentially replying to the original post or comment, highlighting its inaccuracy or absurdity, and then creating memes or simply shared screenshots from those interactions.

The technique allows the political enemy to damn themselves with their own words, while curating those encounters to present the voice of the opponent in the most damaging way imaginable. Now doing this was not novel to Raichik’s approach-virtually everyone does this to some extent if they argue politics online. Mainstream media accounts, legacy media commentators online, and the legacy media news cycle as well as progressive propaganda in entertainment are doing essentially the same thing all the time. We are constantly presented for example with the most extreme commentary of any right wing person, or the worst actions in their life, or ‘news’ bias that sets out from the beginning to describe these persons in as bad a light as possible.

What was essentially different about the Libs of Tik Tok approach was the direction of attack. This was not State or Establishment mandated scorn. This was not aimed at conservative, patriotic or libertarian attitudes. It was aimed squarely at the CURRENT political and media elite and their shared prejudices and absurdities, highlighting for example the extremes of policy and behaviour associated with the LGBTQ+ lobby and the mainstream institutional consensus of pandering to that lobby no matter how bizarre, anti social and untrue many of its claims and actions had become. The Libs of Tik Tok account highlighted, in their own words and by their own actions, the absurd extremes of those supporting a whole range of things from academics trying to normalise bestiality to libraries and schools bringing in drag queen story hour grooming events.

Together with that, the Libs of Tik Tok accounts have consistently exposed gaps between the ‘positive’ rhetoric of diversity, inclusion and empathy and the growing association with and support for political violence, fanatical extremism, rioting, looting, and murder coming from the ‘progressive’ side of politics, especially in connection with events like the BLM riots. All of these things to many of us seem like common sense responses to the obvious extremism of many Democrat backed groups and causes. The Libs posts generally do not include extensive commentary and do not include much in the way of emotive rhetoric or loaded descriptives with a pejorative intent. These aren’t impassioned speeches of denunciation or constant sly insinuations or hysterical comparisons to Hitler, unlike the kind of rhetoric that the mainstream legacy media and Democrat influencers like Robert Reich employ routinely for example about Trump or Elon Musk.

The Raichik style of commentary is normally brief, to the point, and either strictly factual or what one might call honestly sarcastic. It’s the enemies own words, highlighted in a particular way with a brief sarcastic response, that do the majority of the work condemning them. This technique combined with this style was swiftly extremely popular and incredibly well suited to modern communications and perhaps modern attention spans too.

In terms of the furious responses to the work of the Libs memes, we must surely see that the most significant issue with these memes for the Democrat political establishment and their institutional and media allies are not that Raichik herself was encouraging violence and discord but that she was exposing just how much they were. Just a single line sarcasm appended to their own words could be devastatingly effective in this regard, and that was the primary cause of these accounts being suspended or blocked on platforms wholly aligned with the Democrat political party. Libs was designated as extreme and dangerous for showing that the Elite Progressive consensus on social attitudes and social policies regarding race, gender and identity, and the increasing censorship totalitarianism from a side of politics that had all major institutions, corporations and branches of government effectively seeking to criminalise voices of dissent, was extreme and dangerous.

To extremists in power, who have already institutionalised their own most bizarre opinions and already put State and Corporate power in fascist alignment behind their policing of what is societally acceptable and what isn’t, a sarcastic voice of normality which becomes extremely popular is an unrelenting threat, and that’s what lies behind descriptions such as this, the Wikipedia entry for Libs of Tik Tok:

“Libs of TikTok is a handle for various far-right^[a] and anti-LGBT^[b] social-media accounts operated by Chaya Raichik (/ˈxɑːjə ˈraɪtʃɪk/ KHAH-yə RY-chik),^[10] a former real estate agent.^[11][12][13] Raichik uses the accounts to repost content created by left-wingand LGBT people on TikTok, and on other social-media platforms, often with hostile, mocking, or derogatory commentary.^[14][15] The accounts promote hate speech and transphobia, and spread false claims, especially relating to medical care of transgender children.^{[16][14][17][18]}The Twitter/X account, also known by the handle @LibsofTikTok, has over 4.2 million followers as of February 2025^[19][20][21] and has become influential among American conservatives and the political right.^[12][15][22] Libs of TikTok's social-media accounts have received several temporary suspensions and a permanent suspension from TikTok.^{[23][24][25][26]}

Some Libs of TikTok posts have resulted in harassment against teachers, medical providers, children's hospitals, libraries, LGBT venues,^{[12][27][28][29]} and educational facilities, several of which received bomb threats after being featured on a post.^[30][31] Libs of TikTok posts regularly label LGBT people, as well as those who provide mental-health services to LGBT youth and LGBT sex education to students, as "groomers".^[c] Its followers "routinely attack individuals whose content is shared",^[23] and several dozen incidents of online or real-life threats and harassment against a range of targets, including 21 bomb threats, have been linked to Libs of TikTok's tweets, especially those where Raichik singles out specific events, locations or people.^{[31][34][35]”}

I have kept the Wikipedia links intact, just in case anyone wishes to be guided towards a whole set of other mainstream articles and opinion pieces designed to buttress the condemnatory language of the Wikipedia entry. No doubt highly partisan and radical progressive sources such as the Southern Poverty Law Centre will feature heavily, as will mainstream journalism with its Soviet Pravda levels of group think and conformity.

As examples of the ‘hate speech’ and ‘far right’ and ‘transphobic’ views of Raichik that the Wikipedia article goes on to share we are told that these accounts spread the “conspiracy theory” that the 2020 election was stolen by electoral fraud, that they described adult drag queens sexually gyrating in front of small children as grooming, and that they opposed draconian COVID measures such as vaccine mandates and masking. As ever with such progressive deployment of pejorative descriptions, no explanation is given of how exactly supporting the Nuremberg Code and accurately pointing out when it is being broken is Nazism is provided. How is protecting children from potential sexual predators and public sexualised fetish based behaviour that is highly inappropriate for some ages, exactly, ‘far right’? What’s the link between demanding electoral integrity and elections without fraud with support for dictatorship and Jew hatred, exactly?

Mainstream media commentary and progressive controlled ‘volunteer’ outlets like Wikipedia of course would immediately frame even asking them to explain how they decide something is far right and dangerous as BEING far right and dangerous, just as sarcastically pointing out that a particular institution or individual is backing something socially extreme is taken as encouragement of violence towards that institution or individual.

Clearly, the Wikipedia article seeks to directly link Raichik with violence, including citing 21 bomb threats. What it doesn’t supply, because I suspect it can’t supply it, is any direct call to violence, ever, from any Libs meme or post. The encouragement of violence here is not a real one, but simply a charge levelled on an opponent to silence and criminalise them. The conflation it seeks to make is that ANY sarcasm towards progressive or Democrat positions, any exposure of them to public ridicule, any use of their own words to show that THEY are social extremists, is ‘extremist’.

You can’t ridicule us, even with our own words and actions, because violence might follow that. But we can call you whatever we please, demonise you extensively, ban and silence you, and of course encourage our side to physically attack you.

That is the mainstream media, Wikipedia, and Democrat Party line on free speech and extremism. If you ridicule or contradict us, it’s effectively terrorism. Because words are violence, and because we are so sensitively offended by what you say or by the attitudes you possess. But if we call you far right without evidence, and conflate you with terrorism and violence when you have never backed those things, there’s no consequence to that at all. The Wikipedia articles are free to demonise and slander Raichik as much as they please, the Democrat Party can call for violence as much as they like, and they can engage in this disgusting propaganda process of labelling everyone who opposes them as Hitler, and none of that has a consequence.

None of their words and none of their demonisation are subject to the same hyper sensitivity and conflation with political violence that they apply to our sarcasm and our memes.

But of course it does have a consequence. We don’t have the majority of US students in polling saying they support the genocidal terrorist organisation Hamas in its war on Israeli civilians without a huge amount of Democrat propaganda, funded by the likes of Democrat donor and recipient of Democrat government spending George Soros, shaping those attitudes. To be fair it’s not just Democrats shaping those attitudes, although I suspect that 99% of the academic lecturers encouraging their students to pathologically hate Israel or to see chasing Jews across campus as support for innocent Palestinians vote Democrat. But of course these academics are also funded by foreign governments and by Muslim States like the Qataris or the Saudis who regardless of their differences with Iran will make sure that the general attitude of excusing Muslim violence and terrorism prevails.

And it also has a consequence in the direct ways we can see Democrat endorsed violence occurring again and again. The biggest and most devastating riots in US history, the greatest property damage, more than twenty confirmed deaths, were the BLM riots which all Democrats including the most senior openly supported. Rioting for months including multiple murders and setting fire to federal buildings. Democrats supported that while it happened with no consequenves afterwards, with no legal accountability for openly supporting the domestic terrorism of BLM. TV companies, satellite companies, supermarkets, media companies, social media companies, everything from Netflix to Walmart to the NFL all supported BLM and the black supremacist messaging and encouragement of violence linked to it. But with zero accountability.

Think about it honestly and it’s pretty astonishing really. As soon as you understand that this WAS domestic terrorism, and you understand that the whole media, political and business elite supported it, you perceive the scale of the problem and the scale of the hypocrisy in terms of how we deal with extremism and violence that has a political cause behind it.

So what happens when you have this situation, when one side of politics has become incredibly extreme but that isn’t acknowledged because that side of politics has the majority of the money, the elite support, and the institutional support behind it? Well you get that side of politics becoming utterly lawless of course. You get that side of politics hiring people to commit domestic terrorism, and then that side of politics refusing to prosecute, police or stop violent criminals whose interests align with their own. You get them mass releasing violent criminals on ideological grounds, as has occurred in several Democrat controlled cities, or decriminalising anti social previously criminal acts, as has occurred in places like San Francisco. You get them actively protecting violent criminal gangs and importing them into the country, as the Biden administration did, and seeking to prevent their deportation, as Judge Boesberg has done.

And you get the assassination attempts on the life of Donald Trump that occurred during the 2024 election campaign. Those attempts come as a direct consequence of other things. They come as a direct consequence of Robert Reich narratives calling Donald Trump Hitler. They come as a direct consequence of Bob de Niro rants about beating Trump up. They come as a direct consequence of articles in The Atlantic, The New York Times and similar outlets calling Trump a dictator. They come as a direct consequence of Biden’s ranting denunciations and again comparisons of Trumpism and MAGAism with Nazism. You cannot spend nearly a decade unjustly describing someone as a threat to democracy and as a vile and hideous existential threat to your nation without that having a consequence on your supporters and their attitudes. You cannot devote almost ten years of the entire output of western media towards untrue demonisation of a political rival without that shaping how your supporters view political violence. You cannot praise terrorists and murderers, which is what the Left and the progressive side of politics has been doing for generations going back to groups like the Black Panthers or Weather Underground, and that not be your movement and your politics being dangerous and extremist.

The same people who falsely accuse a Libs of Tik Tok of encouraging violence have created and funded major domestic terrorist events like the Tesla attacks or like the BLM riots. As soon as you raise the black power fist, you are a supporter of political violence and you have lost the right to be listened to on real Nazi salutes, let alone ones you have only imagined, because the Black Panthers had racist supremacist views and killed people too. The difference there is of scale, not kind, as is the difference between past Nazi hatred of Jews and current progressive hatred of Jews.

How can someone simultaneously support Hamas and tell us who is or isn’t a Nazi? How can someone simultaneously support racial segregation and racially defined public spaces and simultaneously claim to be fighting racism? How can someone stand up as a senior politician and tell people to harass and assault the other side and then say that they are the people protecting Democracy? How can the people who are fighting to keep violent criminal gang members in the country and who wanted the police defunded say that they are the side of normal rules and boundaries protecting the values of a civilised society? How can the people who think that assasination is a good thing be the people who are going to morally guide us on dealing with extremism and disinformation?

After they have spent nearly a decade creating the Democrat voter support for polirical violence.

These contradictions are irreconcilable and can only persist with the most cynical hypocrisy or the most deluded indoctrination.

And like most of Libs memes, the truth about the contradictions and about the reality of who is sponsoring the vast majority of extremism comes from Democrat sources themselves. Because this is where we look at the source of the Libs meme which tells us that over half of Democrat voters support murdering their political opponents.

That source is the Network Contagion Research Institute. Its Democrat credentials are impeccable. It’s a non-governmental research body with close links to Rutgers University and to John F. Farmer of the Eagleton Institute of Politics. It was founded in 2018 by the psychologist and neuroscientist Joel Finkelstein and began by publishing research articles criticising the Qanon movement. Finkelstein is an elderly (83 year old) lawyer with Democrat bragging rights running through his veins. He is a Democrat voter and donor who has worked on Democrat campaigns and was the youngest lawyer involved in the drafting of the Voting Rights Act. As a Democrat founded, university linked NGO with a self declared mission of tackling disinformation and extremism the Network is exactly the kind of organisation that might have received USAID funding or be considered by most Democrats as an impeccable, credentialed, professional source.

And its latest research, the paper referenced by Libs of Tik Tok (the NCRI Assassination Culture Brief) is saying that the majority of Democrats support political assassination. An earlier report (Praise for United Healthcare CEO Assassination Goes Viral) referenced the widespread Democrat voter support for the murder of Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione on December 4th 2024.

It’s time that senior Democrat politicians who have encouraged and supported political violence are held accountable. It’s time that media sources who slander and lie by directly comparing Donald Trump or Elon Musk with Adolf Hitler are held legally accountable for their extremism and their encouragement of political violence through constant demonising propaganda. There has to be some accountability flowing in the other direction now. After the Tesla attacks, after the assassination attempts, there is no reason why a Kash Patel and Dan Bongino headed FBI and Republican judges should not begin to apply accountability in instances where senior Democrat politicians have supported domestic terrorism or where Democrat billionaires have funded it.

We can’t let them get away with pretending that Libs of Tik Tok is dangerous and at the same time acting as if headlines screeching that Elon Musk is Hitler aren’t dangerous. The double standards and the lack of standards are now at the point where millions of Democrat voters are apparently fine with murdering their opponents. That has to be legally and societally addressed.