Dear CS, hope you see this. Thanks! You didn’t leave your email.
You remember the basics of chaos theory, I’m sure. Like how a drunken women getting a butterfly-flapping-its-wings tattoo in Ibiza sets off an unpredictable chain of connected causal events that eventually leads to Uncle Joe Biden giving another $50 billion or so to Ukraine—through certain intermediaries, of course.
The key with chaos is extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. Alter just one thing in the tiniest degree at the beginning—say the woman opts for Margaritas instead of Watermelon Stoli—and the money instead goes to a pharmaceutical instead.
The thing is this: if you were a Pfizer rep boozing it up with that broad, you wouldn’t know which drinks to fetch. The string of events leading to the payoff is too huge and unknowable. Prediction is out of the question.
Unless you renamed that unpredictable causal chain stochastic terrorism.
This concept is a new bit of The Science from the Regime. The idea is that anything violent— which may or may not mean literal violence, and may be metaphorical violence—that happens to a woke can be traced back to its beginnings to an instance of “hate” from a Realist.
It’s just like the money-going-to-Ukraine example in the sense that the chain of causation from the “violence” to the “hate” can be long, tangled, and impossible to see without a woke The Science filter. Whereas in chaos the ascription of causation of some end event is impossible in scenarios like ours, in “systemic terrorism” all “violence” is pre-judged to have been caused or facilitated by Realists.
Here’s the funniest example, from City Journal.
Chris Rufo was on Tucker Carlson’s show discussing the plague of men in women’s dresses at libraries who are being given free access to the kiddies. The same night the episode aired, Paul Pelosi and his hammer buddy had their little get together.
Which we statisticians wouldn’t even call a coincidence, given that billions of other events also happened around the same time of Carlson’s episode. But it was called “stochastic terrorism” by one man.
Bryn Nelson said so, in what is still and amazingly called Scientific American.
Nelson said Rufo engaged in “ideologically driven hate speech”. And, he intimated, that hate speech led to the hammer blows.
It is clear in his writing that Nelson has no love for Rufo, or those that support him. He has unkind things to say about Carlson and “former President” Trump. He is dripping with disgust over them, and vilifies those that like(d) Trump. Because their “hate”, like the Ibiza lady’s tattoo, causes “stochastic terrorism” of the kind that happened to Pelosi.
This new The Science is also touted by Press Watch. They put it this way:
Stochastic terrorism means terrorism that’s statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In simpler language, it means that when Trump or his allies encourage violence — when the say the kind of stuff they say all the time now — it is not just possible that someone at some point will do something about it, it’s damn near inevitable.
I guess Nelson’s crystal ball model is shinier than Press Watch’s, because he was able to tie Pelosi’s attack to Rufo. But never mind.
The claim is simple. Hate, disgust, vilification, and heated rhetoric all cause stochastic terrorism. “When Fox personality Jesse Watters says ‘They’ve declared war on us and now it’s game on,’ it’s not just talk. It’s stochastic terrorism,” they say.
As is obvious to any Realist, the constant hate, vilification, disgust, and heated rhetoric spewed by the woke doesn’t cause “stochastic terrorism.” Thus Nelson spinning in a circle and calling his enemies bad people has no terroristic effect, and cannot produce violence.
Even when it does. Such as when Shannon Brandt ran over and murdered the kid because he thought the kid was a “Republican extremist”. Or when Darrell Brooks blasted into the Christmas parade and murdered and maimed his racial enemies. Or when Steve Scalise and others were blasted by an enflamed woke out for Realist blood. Or when—-but is there any reason to continue?
You would think this Jovian level of blatant throbbing flashing bright neon hypocrisy would at least cause mild discomfort in the minds of those promulgating “systemic terrorism.” But it doesn’t. They have no qualms using the same techniques they condemn in their enemies, and, because the left is everywhere in charge, using them with greater frequency and intensity.
Hypocrisy is an unknown word to them. They do not feel it. When you present them an example, they cannot see it. Why?
Because the left believes in the Enemy. They must have one. Must, because they believe there is an arrow to history, and they are leading the way to the utopian future. Since we’re not there yet, it necessarily means there are people alive now holding back this bliss. The Enemy.
Without this fantasy of a paradise brought about by their unique efforts, they would have no need to fight their constant war against “hate”. That One Way sign is why they do not see it as hypocrisy to hate the Enemy while simultaneously condemning hate.
Addendum Something like this was mentioned on the podcast:
Vishal Singh, an #Antifa far-left violent extremist in Los Angeles who identifies as a journalist, is calling for deadly violence again. He has declared war on Republicans & repeatedly threatens @libsoftiktok. Singh was invited by @aaja to speak at their conference this year. pic.twitter.com/HGYkcncZ02
— Andy Ngô ???? (@MrAndyNgo) November 21, 2022
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: email@example.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.