What Do You Get When You Marry Stochastic Terrorism With Hypocrisy?

What Do You Get When You Marry Stochastic Terrorism With Hypocrisy?

Dear CS, hope you see this. Thanks! You didn’t leave your email.

You can listen to the podcast at YouTube (my strike for mentioning forbidden Reality expired), Bitchute, or Gab.

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:

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: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.


  1. V

    Stochastic terrorism is not amenable to analysis since it fails the ergodic assumption. A theory without measurements. But that is an insult to String Theory.

  2. Vermont Crank

    stochastic (adj.)
    1660s, “pertaining to conjecture,” from Greek stokhastikos “able to guess, conjecturing,” from stokhazesthai “to guess, aim at, conjecture,” from stokhos “a guess, aim, fixed target, erected pillar for archers to shoot at,” perhaps from PIE *stogh-, variant of root *stegh- “to stick, prick, sting.” The sense of “randomly determined” is from 1934, from German stochastik (1917).

    HAhahahahahaha -The left wins again

  3. Incitadus

    I don’t want to hear anymore virtue signaling about Western moral superiority
    over the NAZIs or Soviets, Russians or Germans. Our descent incorporates
    a demented freak show that theirs lacked but it is operationally equivalent.
    All have been sponsored by team global, WS, COL, BIS etc.

  4. Hagfish Bagpipe

    “Stochastic” is an odd word, let’s see what Wiki has to say about it… Greek origin, “to aim at a mark, guess”, okay… but then further down there’s this gem: “…[Harald] Cramér referred to the 1930s as the “heroic period of mathematical probability theory”.

    Briggs, most unfortunate that you missed the Heroic Period of your profession and instead, by some cruel twist of stochastic fate, suffered ship-wreck here during the Heroic Age of Stupid towering over a blight of deranged blue-haired gay midgets. Pretty funny. At least you’re making the most of it.

  5. JH

    The real question here is: what side can claim to be the real Realist? lol.

  6. re: V “Stochastic terrorism is not amenable to analysis since it fails the ergodic assumption. A theory without measurements. But that is an insult to String Theory.”

    LOL – nice one!

  7. Johnno

    Good good!

    All very nice logical arguments that the prosecution can use against them when they stand trial before the Final Judge at the end of the world!

    Their Stochastic Sins will add compound interest to their real ones!

  8. Ann Cherry

    What Is “Stochastic Terrorism,” And Why Is It Trending? – Dictionary.com(mie)


    It’s one of those big words that make the mal-educated feel intelligent, but as others have noted, Stochastic is basically Greek for “wild-ass guess”. Big whoop.

    Some leftists love the term, because it opens the door to highly selective “guilt by imputation”, such as accusing concerned parents at school board meetings of being Stochastic Terrorists, because they “might” inspire others to violence. (and disagreeing with the school board IS violence, in their view.)

  9. Vwrmont Crank

    Macron is just following in the footsteps of modern Popes..


    However, such desires are a novelty, and thus, easily shrugged off, but it does give you a clue as to why modern Popes refused to be crowned with the Triregnum- for that signals ultimate authority on earth, even over clowns like Macron. You see, Jesus let His enemies Crown him King in mockery of His authority but modern Popes will not let their friends crown them because they are cowards and fear being mocked.

    ‘Pope Innocent III and his times” by Joseph Clayton, pig 84-85: …for the empire itself Innocent had the strongest regard. He held it necessary for the security of mankind (which is why Jews and Protestants were in league against the Catholic Church). A human institution of a usefulness beyond account….It was the pope who transferred the empire from the Greeks (when Charlemagne was crowned). Empire and papacy should be in harmony – as the two cherubim faced each other with wings conjoined over the mercy seat…the two great lights which God set in the firmament of heaven, the greater light (the papacy) to rule the day, the lesser light (the empire) to rule the night. ‘ Empire and papacy were the two swords of the Apostles – ‘ behold here are two swords.’ (Luke xxii, 38)

    In the choice twixt a Hohenstauten (Philip) and Otto the Pope rightly wanted Otto so the Empire would not be the property of one family…(Innoent carefully explained that he was not exercising temporal authority but only indicating the right choice)…

    ” No King could rightly reign unless he devoutly served Christ’s vicar” for “kings but rule over their respective kingdoms while the pope rules over the whole world.

    But Innocent does not say a king may not lawfully reign if he is anti-papal; he cannot rightfully reign…But he will not reign rightly or justly unless, crowned by the pope, he serves as emperor of the pope in things temporal for the promotion of things spiritual and eternal.

  10. Forbes Tuttle

    I’ve always said that, with the left (Democrats, wokesters, PC/SJW brigades, et al.), hypocrisy is a feature not a bug. It’s a character trait, an attribute that reveals itself, shamelessly–every single time. Like a dog licking himself.

  11. Milton Hathaway

    Re “Stochastic Terrorism”, I take it as a positive sign that the left is ramping up their hate-speech-censorship hyperbole to a new level. In particular, the recent ongoing changes at Twitter seem to have them nearing meltdown.

    Twitter. What the heck is twitter anyway? Admittedly I don’t ‘get’ social media, but twitter in particular is a complete mystery to me. Jack Dorsey got his literature paper back marked F, and the professor had written across the top “Too long; remember, brevity is the soul of wit”. Jack was devastated, and to prove his professor wrong, he invented Twitter.

    An acquaintance once told me hated conservatives because they were hypocrites. Liberals aren’t hypocrites, I inquired? No, he said, liberals are not hypocrites, because they don’t claim to be virtuous.

  12. Order Out Of Chaos

    Ordo ab Chao.

  13. gareth

    Podcast suggestions:
    1. Don’t start the outro music until you finish speaking (and maybe end each time with a catchy catch-phrase)
    2. You can get various sounds of the interwebs (search e.g. TaDa sound or DunDunDa). Find a suitable one, lead it into captivity on your file system, click on it whenever you want to play the sound.
    3. Keep up the good work 🙂

  14. PaulH

    It seems to me that the demand for terrorism has exceeded the supply, thus leading to the creation of previously undiscovered “stochastic terrorism.”

  15. SJH

    This “stochastic terrorism” seems like a pompous way to disguise the old “What you said made me punch you, so it’s your fault I won’t control myself”, basically, “Your speech is not politically correct, so you are not allowed to say it’.

  16. Dors

    I want to say, I enjoyed listening to this talk of yours.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *