Stochastic Noticing
There is a critical misunderstanding of the terms "words are violence" and "silence is violence" or when someone describes the “harm” and "trauma" caused by words.
People mistake this as pussified snowflake behavior; the delicate sensibilities of the upper-middle class people with soft hands. In part, it is. When they talk about the trauma, it's part of playing the victim to trigger the deep, unresolved issues of childless women who treat ID categories as their surrogate children, the DEI equivalent of “dog moms.”
It’s also a handy way of instantly rallying support for these women from the hormonally dysregulated men who both loathe and worship chivalry in equal measure.
But you might be missing the big picture. It's not snowflakism. It's not a Horn of Gondor for white knights. It's not creating a safety blanket, a healing circle, or social armor.
It's so much worse than that.
Let me be very explicit about this: "words are violence" is casus belli.
When is violence okay? It's not a trick question. It's easy, and not just for libertarians who know the NAP and Marines who know the ROE.
Violence is okay as a remedy to unprovoked violence against you, your family, or another innocent person.
When someone says "words are violence," they are saying that whoever said the wrong words has committed an act of violence. The victim(s) of those words—or someone acting in the victim's defense—now have the right to respond with violence until the speaker is subdued or destroyed.
It's not crybaby whining. It's a greenlight for retaliatory violence. It's a big fucking IR target designator laser identifying you to the nearest available close air support. It's the pod people pointing and shrieking.
Lately, this "words are violence" term has fallen out of fashion, but these ideas don't just vanish. The language fuckers are all about marketing. They repackage and rebrand. The shiny new incarnation of "words are violence" is the much better disguised buzz-phrase "stochastic terrorism."
Are they talking about that time Joseph Smith received a revelation from God that some brave, heroic man within his flock would assassinate another LDS in Ohio who ran Smith’s banking scam? Or the time he made similar predictions about a former Missouri governor who was giving the LDS trouble? There were two dudes who thought God was talking to them directly through Smith (and made a liar of God by failing in both attempts).
Or maybe we’re talking about something like William Luther Pierce’s unreadable book, The Turner Diaries, which is basically an instruction manual on making and using bombs, hidden inside of an excruciatingly boring narrative.
Are we talking about notable literary critic Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie?
Is that the kind of stochastic terrorism we mean? Using plausible deniability and lawlerly layered technicalities?
Of course not.
"Stochastic terrorism" is functionally identical to "words are violence." The people who've updated to this new firmware are talking about any damn thing they don't like.
***
We need to touch on another term of art that my conspiracy-minded friends know very well: false flag.
A false flag is used to pin a crime on someone else, often to manufacture casus belli. See: Gulf of Tonkin, Germany vs Poland in '38, etc.
That's why when they do something bad, and people notice and tell others, they freak out and publicly declare that their life is in danger. It's like that episode of South Park where the rednecks find a legal loophole to go hunting off-season: they can kill an animal, but only if it attacks them first. They go into the woods and when they spot an animal, they yell, "It's coming right for us!" and blast the hell out of rabbits and deer.
A good acronym you should already know is DARVO, which is well-known to anyone who knows anything about domestic violence. It means Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.
It’s simple:
An abuser does something wrong.
The victim notices it.
The abuser denies any wrongdoing.
The abuser attacks the victim, calling them crazy, or a liar.
The abuser switches who is the abuser and victim, rationalizing how they were the real victim, actually, and they are owed an apology. And if they are good at it, they will extract an apology from their victim.
“I’m sorry I burnt the meatloaf. I should know how angry you get.”
“I’m sorry I noticed you were cheating on me. I shouldn’t have violated your privacy by casually noticing you received a text message from a stripper.”
***
After being stochastically noticed, you can always expect them to complain about harassment and death threats targeting them or their kids. They are very scared and VERY harassed. And it’s your fault. It’s your fault for noticing stochastically. How could you? How could you do this to them? How could you endanger the LIVES OF CHILDREN by NOTICING?
When others notice the bad thing they did, they feel endangered. Noticing is an act of violence against a civilian target for the purpose of making political change. Noticing is terrorism.
They're saying, "Stop noticing the shit I do or I'll hurt you.” Everything else is a convoluted post-hoc rationalization about why it’s okay to hurt you.
***
Most of these people don't ever attack anyone. Violence—I mean real violence—requires working with your hands. Violence is too corporeal. It’s too blue collar. Gross. That’s why they would outsource their violence to (literal) blue collar experts at exerting force: the cops. Stochastic Noticing has to be outlawed. At the very least, it must be slowed down long enough that normies start to notice after it’s way too late to do anything about it.
The logical conclusion is to make stochastic noticing illegal because that gives them license to sic cops on people. By people, I mean you. Not them. Just you. By them, I mean of course the people who describe themselves as The Decent Human Beings™. By you, I mean the people they regard as indecent sub-humans.
The Decent Human Beings™ need to speak to your supervisor RIGHT NOW. If only there were an app to conjure police to kick people’s asses. We could call it Uber Beats. The cops probably won't just shoot you on sight (probably), but they might take your kids away or put you in a cement cube for a year or two. That’s what you get for sharing your observations about a Decent Human Being’s™ shitty behavior with other people… stochastically.
Calling you a stochastic terrorist isn’t a slur. It is a false flag to establish casus belli to justify actual violence against you, both private and/or state-sanctioned. It's a fatwa. It's a contract. It's your name on an Obama disposition matrix. It's your face on a deck of Iraq's Most Wanted playing cards.
When you hear casual use of words like "dangerous" and "trauma,” get ready for the same people to offer tyrannical remedies.
***
When they notice you, it's not stochastic terrorism. When they do the noticing (or worse) they are doing stochastic counter-terrorism. They’re the good guys, dummy.
Here is the Gravel Institute agreeing with me:
Gravel Institute made the mistake of being up-front about what they believe and using plain language to explain it. Oops. Naturally, they had to delete the tweet.
You only ever see this level of moral certainty from communists, jihadis, and Saturday morning cartoons. Never forget: They’re GI Joe. They’re The Decent Human Beings™. You’re Cobra. You’re Skeletor. You’re Voldemort. You’re Shredder.
Antifa can make the case themselves. Here is a Texan chainsaw-taxidermy enthusiast to explain it in his own words why it is okay to attack people who notice him.
Antifa have no trouble rationalizing their behavior. Every time they cover their face and torch a black neighborhood, they are committing heroic acts of self-defense. Ask them and they’ll tell you.
The Stakes & Preferences
The higher the stakes, the less believable the claim, but the more zealous the believers. The Heaven’s Gate UFO cult didn’t castrate themselves then commit suicide because they believe that a hotdog is a sandwich. They did it because they were promised a ride on a spaceship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet, moments before the planet earth was to be recycled.
Likewise, the greater the imagined threat, the greater the scale of retaliatory "defensive" violence.
When they accuse others of planning, or even presently committing a genocide, well… don’t be surprised if they retaliate at the appropriate scale.
This is where we see the revealed preferences of political violence. I've seen people on television decry the end of democracy as we know it, the imminent end of all good things forever, eternal darkness and misery. And yet they aren't armed. They haven't built bunkers. To the best of my knowledge, Rachel Maddow has never taken the time to learn long-distance sharpshooting so that she could rid the world of the man she says is an existential threat to everything good.
There are environmentalists who say the world will end in 7 years if we don't control industrial production. The ones who build mansions on coasts that they expect to flood with melted arctic ice within their lifetimes.
And then there are environmentalists who actually believe it enough to blow up scientists with letter bombs.
There are people who say abortion is killing 73 million babies annually, a rate of 12 Jewish holocausts annually.
And then there are people who believe it enough to bomb a clinic.
There are people who say that there is a trans genocide.
And then there are those who actually believe it enough to shoot up a school in Nashville.
We can clearly see two classes of people:
The ones who say they believe things, but their behavior reveals that deep down inside, they only kind of believe it. They believe it, but not enough to be inconvenienced.
The ones who believe it—I mean, really believe it—behave exactly as you should expect. They believe it enough to kill and die. Environmentalists may talk a good game about the end of days, but it’s the Mormons have honest-to-God Bond-villain mountain bunkers, a vast cache of supplies and weapons with which they will bring the word of Moroni to the savage mutants of the irradiated American wasteland.
***
The Decent Human Beings™ need you to hit them first. They want it so badly. They are literally asking for it. Because when it happens, they believe you just stamped approval on their double-oh-seven loicense. And they're probably right. If you take the bait, you give them casus belli. If you don’t, well… casus belli will have to be manufactured with a false-flag.
People who are afraid don’t go on cable news to talk about how afraid they are. People who are afraid don’t stand in traffic with aspirations of becoming the next Heather Heyer. People who are afraid don’t stand 3 inches from police and spit on them, call them names, and laugh. People who are afraid—really afraid—keep their mouths shut and opinions to themselves. They keep their head down. They stay the fuck home.
The Decent Human Beings™ don’t feel threatened by you. They’re delivering a threat to you.
Have you noticed the paradox?
Accusing someone of stochastic terrorism is itself an act of stochastic terrorism.
As a wise man once said:
A liar is the kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and says, "I only ate two cookies." (They ate six)
A psychopath is the kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and says, "I didn't eat six cookies. You did."