US Presidential Election 2020

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:10 pm

.

And I don't just subscribe but witnessed in real time, as did all who aren't blinding themselves, how said Trump, seeing he was likely to lose, publicly initiated a back-up plan for a coup d'etat against the predictable election result months in advance.


Come on, bruh. How much longer you gonna hold that line? I will go on the record here and say: I simply do not accept that these were Trump's true intentions. I do agree that he was playing a role, however.

There was no 'coup'.
Where were the demands?
Where's the manifesto?
Did they sit in protest for hours+ once they got in the Capitol? Did they take any hostages?

Did Trump enter the Capitol, once "seized", and declare himself the rightful representative for our glorious democracy?

The details of what we've been witnessing over the past year+ will likely never be known. And as with most events at these scales, there will be factors outside of anyone's control, myriad players, and no singular 'master plan'.

But the sequential timing of COVID + Street riots + 2020 Election + Great Reset Agenda/4th industrial revolution, etc. is no mere coincidence.

(you mention COVID's role in the election outcome, and I agree. To what extent is this more than happenstance? I mean, minimally a political party capitalized on COVID to increase their odds. There are more cynical takes, though.)

They're all inter-connected, and timed. One may argue that aspects of this was more a function of capitalizing on events out of control, rather than full-on theatre. Again, I revert to my prior comment above: there will always be factors unaccounted for and outside of control. But decades of incrementally refined conditioning methods get us to a point where a curated version of the butterfly effect takes hold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

I agree with a fair bit of your commentary otherwise (though you've doubtless little/no interest in my level of agreement, in any event.)
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:18 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:10 pm wrote:.

And I don't just subscribe but witnessed in real time, as did all who aren't blinding themselves, how said Trump, seeing he was likely to lose, publicly initiated a back-up plan for a coup d'etat against the predictable election result months in advance.


Come on, bruh. How much longer you gonna hold that line? I will go on the record here and say: I simply do not accept that these were Trump's true intentions. I do agree that he was playing a role, however.

There was no 'coup'.
Where were the demands?
Where's the manifesto?
Did they sit in protest for hours+ once they got in the Capitol? Did they take any hostages?


Stop. Just stop. You're not even reading what I wrote. You're just reacting reflexively, and in defense of or trivialization of the fascist mob who were simply the tail-end of the coup. The coup was a public matter for months, announced and attempted, and run by Trump and his inside mob (not by the fascist invitees to the Trump rally in DC, who were used as the final move once all else had failed or been mis-executed).

What was the demand? That, no matter what the results were, Trump wins. What's the manifesto? Whatever he'd say and do after that. You're apparently not simple-minded enough to understand this style of politics?

Was it real on his part, or was he an actor throughout in some larger script to have him fall and thus justify the aftermath? I admit both are possibilities. Do I fucking care? Why do you? If it was the latter, he was what, the Marvel/DC supervillain? So you go to the movie and root for that?

Please, either read what I write and reply to that if you want, or ignore it and don't reply to it. Okay?

JackRiddler » Sat Feb 06, 2021 1:56 pm wrote:
Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:52 pm wrote:.

Anyone here still subscribing to the notion 2020 results were legitimate?

They are increasingly overt in the psych warfare/mindf#ckery.

Whatever the agenda may be for 2021+, it appears Trump was not the preferred option as PR for Empire.


No results were legitimate. Certainly not 2016, or 2000. Or 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2004, or 2012. One can argue for 1976 and 2008 as being merely deceptive, rather than illegitimate. (Most of these elections were "legitimate" under the rules and as counts of which one of the pre-ordained duopoly miscreants got the better part of the vote, but otherwise vast jokes for a thousand reasons we will all be familiar with.)

That being said...

Yes, I don't just subscribe, but I am certain of the proposition that after the March 2020 primary coup, which was engineered against Sanders by the DNC & Co. to install their right-wing placeholder, this ancient walking miracle Biden-husk then got more real human votes, and more electoral votes, legally, "legitimately," than did Trump. In my opinion this was thanks not to anything the DNC did (they were set up to lose, as usual) but to Covid, the Covid-enabled reactions, the Depression, and a hellacious GOTV effort run largely by people on the actual, electoral left, who aren't mentioned in the highly selective TIME write-up cum PR piece for Catalist.

Said Trump, in turn, had been installed by the corporate media with a bit of naive DNC help as the RNC candidate in 2016,* and won then thanks to voter suppression and presumably state-level fraud, as well as the absurdist Electoral College system. ( * In truth, he certainly ran an excellent campaign of giving the Republican base exactly what they wanted to hear.) Live by the fix...

And this Trump is a member as well as representative of the smash-and-plunder segment of billionaire capital, while Biden is a representative of the self-styled "establishment" corporate segment of billionaire capital that prefers to disguise smash-and-plunder as a stable system of exploitation, as if anything about it is still stable. Both members and servants of different segments within the same ruling class. And they're both equally neoliberal, although one is multilateral about it and the other is straight nationalist-protectionist, in highly selective fashion that favors its own segments of capital. And they're both roughly equally imperialist and belligerent mass murderers, with some differences that may matter to Iranians or Cubans, depending on what decisions are made in the next few months.

And I don't just subscribe but witnessed in real time, as did all who aren't blinding themselves, how said Trump, seeing he was likely to lose, publicly initiated a back-up plan for a coup d'etat against the predictable election result months in advance. Is this worse than bombing Yemen, or starving Venezuela and Iran, or accelerating the burning of the planet, or mass incarceration, or all the rest of the routine as well as occasionally unexpected actions of the U.S. government under Trump and others? Really not the point! It was something bound to make everything worse in such an obvious way that even some of the billionaire beneficiaries of the Trump tax cuts cared enough to be mobilized against it, on a one-time basis.

Trump and his crew then failed to execute his open, public plan to overturn his predictable (if disturbingly close) election loss on the details. And then, just to underline for you just what he was about, he made a final move, as the executive of the government, of ordering a mob of his supporters (many of them organized by fascist groups), whom he had personally invited to a DC rally, to go shut down the legislature. An American-style coup enactment, in Washington. Many of them, in turn, wanted to murder as many legislators as they could get their hands on. Or at least they said so, and I don't see why they should be disbelieved, but you'll find excuses for them I'm sure. Was it ever going to work? Who cares, is that a fucking excuse? Some of you seem to think it was a fucking understandable rebellion by some random rabble. As if their leader was not the fucking president in office. Speaking to them. At a rally.

I read the TIME article in full yesterday. As did we all. (We being the kind of patsies who post here, instead of somewhere else.) I can't believe everyone falling for it as if it's some kind of revelation of a "conspiracy" (especially since it even uses the word). It describes shit that's done by the money in every election--legally, since money purchasing elections was made legal long ago. It omits the concurrent Republican money-machinations for Trump. It is basically an extremely self-important, self-hyping, extended PR piece for a DNC consultant, claiming he was the real, secret star of the election and savior of "democracy" in America. More contracts for him.

Meanwhile, in the minor schadenfreude department, at least the Lincoln Project is going down in beautiful flames.

.



.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:31 pm

.
ok, I admit to a drive-by scan of your prior note; at my next spot of free time I will read it in full -- a reply may not be needed. Goes without saying I value your assessment* (along with the commentary of other regulars here, whether I agree or not). It's a key reason I keep coming back, despite attempts to refrain.

*that sounds like empty corporate-speak. I like reading your stuff, essentially -- most times...

But quickly, to these points:

What was the demand? That, no matter what the results were, Trump wins. What's the manifesto? Whatever he'd say and do after that. You're apparently not simple-minded enough to understand this style of politics?

Was it real on his part, or was he an actor throughout in some larger script to have him fall and thus justify the aftermath? I admit both are possibilities. Do I fucking care? Why do you? If it was the latter, he was what, the Marvel/DC supervillain? So you go to the movie and root for that?


But Trump didn't win. I get your point about the style of politics, but my larger premise is that it was theatrics, primarily. If, for a moment, I agree that it was a true coup attempt, I don't think Trump would ever be so naive to believe such a venture would be remotely successful, at least in the practical definition of a coup success. I can certainly see a scenario where Trump would value the optics of the event, however: forget the coup; the mere unfolding of the event itself will only galvanize his base, and surely funnel more money his way in the years post-election. But I don't believe this was the driver, nor do I believe Trump was the primary (or likely, even secondary) architect.

If it was the latter, he was what, the Marvel/DC supervillain? So you go to the movie and root for that?


Ha - he was, and is, an actor (and criminal), as all Presidents before him. And after him.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:42 pm

.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that until Reagan the presidents all thought they were the president and could decide what to do with the powers of the president, including change their minds. In at least one case it was a literally fatal conceit. (The real Bush, the old one, also probably thought he was, but no doubt understood as a CIA team leader, not as the chosen leader of a democratic republic or whatever the constitutional arrangement should be called.)
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Marionumber1 » Sat Feb 06, 2021 4:24 pm

Reposting my comment from another thread:

Marionumber1 » Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:00 pm wrote:That RT article is embarrassingly bad, as is par for the course from that platform. It tries as hard as it can to selectively quote certain vague phrases from the article that can be made to sound nefarious if stripped of all their surrounding context. In reality, as one can discern from reading the TIME article, most of the reforms pushed by this "cabal" were the opposite of rigging and did serve to improve or protect the voting process.

Additional resources and staff to run elections sounds pretty reasonable: a lot of voter suppression in past elections has resulted from under-resourced polling places leading to overly long wait times. Mail-in ballot security does have notable issues, but it also increases voter participation and is not markedly more problematic than our entire easily-riggable electronic voting system. Exposing disinformation, despite the uncomfortable history of many groups purporting to do that, is not automatically a bad thing when there truly is disinformation being spread, as was coming from Trump's camp regarding the election. Planned counter-protests against baseless right-wing demonstrations assuming the election is rigged because their guy didn't win is a pretty clear example of justifiable street-level engagement. And for all the handwringing about election officials being "threatened" to certify votes, the fact is that the ones holding out were doing so for obviously partisan reasons and had no objective standards justifying to do so; when public officials start acting against the public interest like that, I would sure as hell hope that the public is engaged enough to put a stop to that. I'd like to see anyone concerned about this story read the TIME article for themselves rather than sharing an obviously-based interpretation that barely reveals any of its contents, and identify what specific issues they have with any of these reforms.

There is cause for concern about empowering social media platforms to take a harder line on (even real) disinformation for the fear that they will also crack down on legitimate information that undeservedly attains the same classification. It is a fair question to ask why corporate and establishment Democrat interests would be working hand in hand with progressive activist groups on this endeavor, for it implies the former intended to get something out of this that the latter would not. One possibility is that a large contingent of the deep state wanted a Biden victory, and put forth this effort to counter the primarily pro-Trump rigging that more Republican-aligned factions with influence over the electoral process (that includes all the major electronic voting system companies, even current right-wing bugaboo Dominion) would attempt. But if so, that really goes to show that all the deep state needed to do in order to "rig" the election for Biden was to hold a freer and fairer presidential election than has been held at any time in recent history.

[...]

I find it disheartening how much the media criticism here and on other parapolitical research communities is so surface level. You see a TIME article that is quite deliberately stoking all your beliefs about secret "liberal" cabals working to protect the election from Trump, and immediately assume it as a confession to a fraud conspiracy, rather than perhaps considering that the deep state benefits from continuing this phony dialogue about the election being rigged for Biden?


I would like to see anyone who is getting worked up about the TIME article to identify the specific policies that were problematic, instead of honing in on a few key words into which nefarious intent can be read. While it is valid to speculate about the motives of 1%-er and DNC aligned forces getting involved in election reform, it doesn't change the fact that many of these reforms were decent or at least not as incriminating on their face as they are made to appear. Certainly none of the things presented in the article amount to a rigged election by any reasonable definition of "rigged election". Which is not to dismiss the overall possibility of a rigged election, but to once again point out that this breathlessly shared evidence "proving" it was rigged for Biden isn't really evidence at all.
Marionumber1
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 06, 2021 4:44 pm

.

I didn't share the piece because I view the content as a means to signify "proof" of tampering/fraudulent activity. Come now. It's TIME Magazine.

Put another way, to what extent is TIME a prototype example of a publication acting, essentially, as propaganda for Empire causes? Content published in TIME (and many other mainstream news sources) are arguably vehicles for sentiment framing, beta-testing would-be agendas, status quo conditioning, etc.

This is my starting point. If TIME is essentially saying, "yea, big players conspired -- and changed laws/policy as needed" to help "ensure democracy", it's basically acknowledging that manipulations occurred. Nothing more will be spoon fed. The rest is up to the mind to assess -- wrongly or somewhat accurately -- based on available information and historical patterns.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Marionumber1 » Sat Feb 06, 2021 4:58 pm

Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:44 pm wrote:.

I didn't share the piece because I view the content as a means to signify "proof" of tampering/fraudulent activity. Come now. It's TIME Magazine.

Put another way, to what extent is TIME a prototype example of a publication acting, essentially, as propaganda for Empire causes? Content published in TIME (and many other mainstream news sources) are arguably vehicles for sentiment framing, beta-testing would-be agendas, status quo conditioning, etc.

This is my starting point. If TIME is essentially saying, "yea, big players conspired -- and changed laws/policy as needed" to help "ensure democracy", it's basically acknowledging that manipulations occurred. Nothing more will be spoon fed. The rest is up to the mind to assess based on available information and historical patterns.


What exactly does "manipulations" mean, though? The TIME piece claims that establishment power players worked for a good cause of making the election more accessible and functional and countering unsupported claims of it being fraudulent. It certainly makes sense to be skeptical of why they would be interested in that and whether their reforms truly were as beneficial as the article claims. But that is precisely why I'm asking those who are expressing concern over this article for specific qualms they have with any of the policies pushed by this group. Because in the absence of evidence that their "manipulations" had some negative impact on the legitimacy of the election, there really is no basis for making an inference from this article that anything nefarious like that went on. The reality is that if they wanted to ensure a Biden win, they probably just needed to make the election less rigged than it usually is; and perhaps that is precisely what happened.

My own personal reading of the article is that it contains a significant amount of conspiracy bait in the way it was written, which was meant to be seized upon by those with an inclination towards believing the election was stolen for Biden. I think the corporate media system really wants that discourse to continue, because the longer it does, the less and less credibility any election integrity movement, aside from a 1%-er directed one, will have.
Marionumber1
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:32 pm

Marionumber1 » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:58 pm wrote:My own personal reading of the article is that it contains a significant amount of conspiracy bait in the way it was written, which was meant to be seized upon by those with an inclination towards believing the election was stolen for Biden. I think the corporate media system really wants that discourse to continue, because the longer it does, the less and less credibility any election integrity movement, aside from a 1%-er directed one, will have.


Yes. It's already in the first section:

In a way, Trump was right. There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/


That hits a sweet spot where the sympathetic reader takes it as irony, while those looking for some smoking-gun "revelation of the method" piece see CONSPIRACY in giant red blinking letters. It brings in a whole other demographic of readers and re-tweeters. I mean, without that magic word in it, maybe RT would have missed it. Instead it's driving a whole set of hits to TIME that aren't from its usual readers.

There is no reason to think of these machinations as conspiracy. It's standard PR and lobby work. (I abhor PR work, to be clear.) Also, not particularly secretive and definitely not illegal. As far as campaign-oriented action by big money goes, what is described is relatively benign, and -- should be emphasized -- very much as a counter-campaign to what the Trump side was doing from the top. One side was preparing the way openly for overturning any election result that wasn't Trump winning -- by any means -- and the other side was responding.

Meanwhile, there were massive and probably decisive activist efforts to get the vote out in Philadelphia and Detroit (both of those on the radical, anti-corporate side). In Arizona, the margin definitely came out of efforts on the Indian reservations. In Nevada, it was the Latino groups. And of course Georgia had all the groups around Stacey Abrams doing this work for years already, very well-organized and official, and funded. None of this is mentioned in the article.

(Never mind the politics of Abrams and co., ideologically. I always respect them for wanting to WIN, unlike the Democratic leadership generally, who really don't act like they give a shit if they have majorities, and who only show tenacity and urgency in blocking the emergence of a real left-bloc within their party.)

The article revolves around this one consultant hero who is shown as putting it all together himself, without whose intervention Trump might have won, or successfully overturned the results. And for all we know this guy effectively wrote the damn thing himself. I imagine if all that had happened were the heroic zoom meetings of consultants and the business-roundtable press releases, without all this ground work NOT mentioned in the article, things might have been different indeed. Because one thing the Trump side was spending on, and mobilizing for, was direct voter outreach. Whereas the Biden campaign did jack-all until the final weeks.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:29 am

.

Breadcrumb.

https://patch.com/new-hampshire/windham ... am-recount


Investigators Eye Voting Devices, Cards After Windham Recount

The NH Attorney General's Office is attempting to find out why there was a discrepancy between optically-scanned ballots and hand recounts.


Image
Above: Unofficial returns in Windham on Nov. 3, 2020, the town clerk says were accurate. Below: A recount found 7 candidates were shorted votes while 1 received too many votes — with state officials and witnesses saying their recount was correct. (Town of Windham; Christopher Maidment)

CONCORD, NH — The Election Law Unit of the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office has requested reams of information from the town of Windham in an attempt to find out why there was such a huge discrepancy between paper ballots optically-scanned on Election Day in November 2020 and wildly different totals after the ballots after a hand recount.

The attorney general's office was requested to look into the matter by the Ballot Law Commission in late November after a recount and a challenge to the recount.

After the Nov. 3, 2020, election, four Republicans bested four Democrats in Windham for four state representative seats. The highest vote-getter for the Democrats, Kristi St. Laurent, who was running for office for the sixth time, fell 24 votes short of winning. Because the race was so close, an automatic hand recount of the paper ballots was held with St. Laurent wanting one, too. After the recount, the totals of all eight candidates shifted wildly: The four Republicans, it turned out, were shorted by four different amounts of votes between 297 and 303, St. Laurent lost 99 votes, and three other Democrats gained between 18 and 28 more votes.

The separation between St. Laurent and the Republican in fourth place, Julius Soti, went from 24 votes to 420.


State officials and witnesses from both political parties were baffled by the huge discrepancy which has no logical explanation.

New Hampshire law only allows for a single recount of a race so St. Laurent went to the commission to challenge the result. The commission, which is bipartisan, however, upheld the victory for Soti.


St. Laurent, in a letter to the commission, said there were only two explanations for the bizarre variation in the vote counts — "either the machines were programmed to reflect unwarranted adjustments in multiples of 100 to the totals of all Republicans and the top voter receiver among Democrats or a significant number of ballots were double-counted during the (recount) process." That double counting, however, did not explain, to any degree, why her count would drop by 99 votes, she said.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Marionumber1 » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:03 pm

Thank you for sharing this, it's a very interesting story that seems to have gone completely under the radar. Definitely hard to parse exactly what is going on here, since it seems every candidate was shorted by the electronic machines except for Kristi St. Laurent, the most vocal figure in challenging the machine count. And it's interesting to note that Windham NH is the town just adjacent to Londonderry NH, where the former CEO John Silvestro and former sales/marketing manager Ken Hajjar of the state's main election contractor LHS Associates grew up.
Marionumber1
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:48 pm

.

A recent piece by a colleague of RI (guruilla).



UFOs [UnFounded Opinions] on Capitol Hill: Scapegoating, Schismogenesis, Election Fraud & the Controlled Destabilization of the US in 2021


February 10, 2021 by Jasun

Image


A participant in the Dave Oshana project (named "P*") recently expressed a wish to hear points of view opposed to his own. I do not want to categorize human souls, but in the interests of brevity let’s say that P*’s circles pertain to the democratically-minded, Trump-appalled, liberal elect, who “proudly voted for Joe Biden.” P* entered into conversation with another DO-participant, J*, who is more affiliated with “the other side,” and who proudly voted for Trump, seeing him as a maverick outsider attempting to save the US Republic from encroaching socialism, globalism, and a monolithic media-complex.

For some time, P* has been suggesting a discussion group where people with opposing viewpoints can find common ground—a “corpus Colosseum” where right and left sides of the sociopolitical hemisphere can connect and harmonize. I have been interested in facilitating such a space and now the time seems to be near at hand, even as the need for such a project rises exponentially.

A few days ago, I shared this article with P*, John, Dave, and my wife, The War on Disinformation Is a War on Dissent, by Ash Staub. From the article:

While it’s certainly an issue that experts and public officials are often wrong or simply lying to protect their agenda when they label reality as misinformation or disinformation, the more pressing problem is that these politically-motivated labels, particularly disinformation, are being used to justify censorship and repression. Tech platforms have routinely censored information deemed “misleading” regarding COVID-19 and the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, while scientific journals refused to publish papers arguing that COVID-19 originated in a lab. Similarly, censorship of election fraud claims are well-documented, with President Donald Trump, along with a host of other conservatives, being censored for “promoting disinformation.” An even more disturbing trend has arisen over the past few weeks: disinformation is now increasingly referred to as “dangerous” and is being associated with “domestic terrorism.”

….

What’s absurd is that many of those attempting to establish a link between disinformation and violence are themselves using disinformation to buttress their arguments, and are guilty of the very thing they are accusing Trump of doing: challenging an election without evidence. The claim that former President Trump willfully “incited violence” by alleging fraud and urging his supporters to take action is easily refuted by the actual transcript of his speech. Moreover, if challenging an election without evidence is equivalent to inciting violence, what would three years of Russiagate histrionics be considered? . . . But of course, hypocrisy is the point. The “disinformation” label is applied inconsistently in order to silence dissent and further the political interests of those in power. By linking disinformation to violence, censorship of certain narratives, and repression of those who espouse them can be justified under the guise of public safety.

https://humanevents.com/2021/02/04/the- ... n-dissent/

...

P* believes that a rigged or stolen election is an extravagant claim that requires extravagant evidence. From my own perspective, the idea elections aren’t rigged is a naive luxury particular to a certain class demographic. (Cf. the CIA’s involvement in Mexican or Guatemalan elections, and consider that domestic manipulations are a lot more sophisticated and covert, not to mention decades older in 2021.) This latest case of election fraud seems to me only unique in being so bold-faced. In short, there is, from my scant exposure to this, so much evidence that the election was stolen that the only way to ignore it is to keep replaying the mainstream media’s mantra of trust us until it becomes an internal and impenetrable checkpoint against all opposing facts.

Ergo, I felt it only fair to turn the lazy Susan back on P* and ask him to present his reasoning as to why all this evidence was not valid. At the same time, if I was fully honest, I could say I don’t know because I haven’t spent enough the time on it to be sure. My interest is how and why P*—or whoever, I am sure you know someone who fits the bill—would believe in the institutions of government, media, academia, and all the rest, on whom he bases his trusting view of history and politics, with all the historical evidence arguing against the wisdom of such blind trust.

I wrote as much to P*, and invited my other half to provide the evidence P* was asking for, in the hope of challenging his consensus-endorsed perspective. The bulk of this post is my wife’s research, admittedly cursory since it was thrown together in a single day. I am blogging it now because many of my readers are in the US and therefore, potentially if not actually, in the midst of a minefield of mis- and disinformation, ideological zealotry, increased polarization and policing of thy neighbor (schismogenesis), all of which seems to be inexorably leading, if not to civil war then to widespread scapegoating under the guise of unification. Was it ever thus? Sure, but never was the kindling quite so dry and brittle—the global media so far-reaching and inflammatory—as to suggest a coming inferno that none of us will be exempt from.

Point # 1: Weltanschauungskrieg

I think it’s really helpful if people have had an experience of being on the other side of a news story i.e., have direct knowledge of a newsworthy event not filtered through the MSM.

Funnily enough I woke up thinking about this exact issue this morning. I was seeing very clearly how clever it was for those who wield power (TWWP) to put devices into our hands that we then use constantly to report to us on “reality.” It’s diabolically clever.

[Most especially if the medium is the message and the tools we use end up shaping us into instruments of themselves. (“The things you own end up owning you.”) Those who design, build, market and distribute our tools build backdoor access (remote control) into them, and thereby in us, the end-users who covet, purchase, utilize and become dependent on and purveyors of the tools and their programs.]


But I’ve been lucky enough(?) to have had several experiences of being on the other side of “news,” so I’ve seen how even small stories routinely get misreported. Here’s one that is not small: Robert “Willy” Picton, the notorious Canadian serial killer who isn’t. Well, he is. But his brother was the brains and it was an organized crime operation involving many people and including Vancouver police officers who drove some of the murdered women to the pig farm. The parties at the Picton farm were huge—thousands of locals attended them over ten or so years. I’ve talked to a number of people here who attended them and who have opined that, from what they saw, Willy took the fall for the brother and the Hell’s Angels for their big money-making scheme.https://hellsangelsdatabase.blogspot.com/2013/09/hell-angels-pickton-farm-politicians.html

Here is another—a close friend of mine was present in the courtroom when lawyers Jack Cram and Renate Auger were arrested. I arrived too late to witness the fracas myself, but I spoke with my friend moments after the courtroom was cleared. She was one of quite a large number of activists and protesters present who were still milling about excitedly inside and outside the building when I arrived.
https://www.ourcourtssuck.com/Tale2lawyers.html

Cram and Auger had been collecting evidence of a pedophile ring that was targeting Native children, that involved high level establishment folk around here. That report of what happened in that courtroom is fantastical, but substantially true. The investigation, and the investigators were brutally shut down and so it stands: Jack Cram was forced into psychiatric care and Renate Andres-Auger slipped out of the country and hid <— another of my friends was able to check that she was okay from time to time.

(Readers who are paying attention may notice some correlation between those two stories?)

So that’s one major news story that was massively reported—falsely—and another that was never reported in the mainstream press at all. Both indicate the presence of a twilight underworld for which there are thousands of witnesses and yet no public acknowledgement. Hence, cognitive dissonance-inducing, mutually exclusive versions of reality.

Point #2: The Scapegoat Mechanism


Which, I think we agree is about where we are at today, post the Trump presidency—schismogenesized by the hype on our screens 24/7 and on our way to catastrophe:

The second movement in mimetic theory is that of the scapegoat mechanism. As rivals become more and more fascinated with each other, friends and colleagues may be mimetically drawn into the conflict as rival coalitions form. What began as a personal battle may escalate into a Hobbesian battle of all against all, threatening the cohesion and peace of an entire community. …

All that’s required for the scapegoating solution to work is that his guilt is universally agreed upon and that when he is punished or expelled from the community, he will not be able to retaliate. The proof of his guilt is found in the peace that now returns to the community, obtained by virtue of the unanimity against him.

Mimetic theory allows us to see that the peace thus produced is violent, comes at the expense of a victim, and is built upon lies about the guilt of the victim and the innocence of the community.

Scapegoating also operates in individuals at the level of identity. We all construct identities over against someone or something else. I’m a woman, not a man. I’m a liberal not a conservative. I’m an atheist not a believer. And most problematically, I’m good not bad. When we need some other person or group to be bad so we can maintain our sense of ourselves as good by comparison, we have engaged in scapegoating. We are using others to solidify our identity the same way a community uses a scapegoat to solve its internal conflict.

[Rene] Girard points out that to have a scapegoat is not to know you have one. This blindness on the part of the participants with respect to what they are really doing – killing an innocent victim – is the one essential element required for the scapegoating mechanism to work. In other words, participants in the scapegoating mechanism hold an authentic belief in the guilt of the victim, a guilt seemingly demonstrated by the restoration of peace.

That’s a very brief precis of the scapegoat mechanism. You can see how that might fit with the cancelling of Trump, his expulsion from polite society and the current attempt to impeach him for a second time—even though he is no longer president and aught to be beyond the reach of such Constitutional actions?

But there is a problem. Not everyone is convinced of his guilt. In fact, about 75 million Americans may think that he is being lied about, betrayed, misrepresented and unjustly persecuted. Rather than stabilizing a fractious populous, that’s an ongoing, dis-unifying aggravation.


Point #3: Capitol Hill: The Reports Were Exaggerated

Now let me demonstrate something in answer to what P* wrote here:

Worst of all, we live inside bias bubbles whereby our beliefs are reinforced because we are exposed only to the information that reinforces it, and small amounts of counter information from the “other side” that inoculate us, and further hardens our belief bubbles. This situation has reared its ugly head in the US with the “election fraud” controversy, and the subsequent riot that ended the lives of five Americans. The corporate media censored and canceled the information offenders, and the alarm of “censorship” has been raised. But is this truly “censorship” in an Orwellian or anti-American sense? Or is it just good journalism and responsible stewardship of public forums? That would be a matter of opinion, but we’ll get to that. Let’s start with facts.

First, I want to assert that the inability to solve this conundrum amongst ourselves has resulted in five dead Americans. Hence, the seriousness of the issue.


I’ve encountered all this framing before—it may well have been broadcast on NPR every other day for the last 4 years, it’s so familiar—so I know that this isn’t P*’s original thinking on this, just “talking points” that he agrees with, thereby ironically demonstrating his point.

This meme of the “deadly insurrection” at the Capitol has become a bloody big stick to big-up what amounted to what was actually pretty mild riot—as compared to 570 violent BLM protests and that time Antifa set fire to the mayor of Portland’s apartment building with residents in it. Note the graffiti:

Image

So here are the five people who died that day:

1. Ashil Babbitt, (decorated senior security forces 12 year Air Force veteran) shot by an unnamed Capitol Hill police officer (see Point # 4)
2. Benjamin Phillips 50, “died of a stroke,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer
3. Kevin Greeson, 55, had a “history of high blood pressure and suffered a heart attack” according to his family
4. Rosanne Boylan, 34, The chief medical examiner of Washington, D.C., said ‘Boyland’s cause and manner of death are “pending”’.
5. Officer Brian Sicknick, not struck by a fire extinguisher, despite what you’ve heard—the ME reports no “blunt force trauma”.

Now look at this headline: Capitol riots: Names of people killed during Washington DC siege released

While Ashil Babbit, 35, was shot and killed during the riots, three others died from “medical emergencies” [i.e., Benjamin Phillips 50, Kevin Greeson, 55, Rosanne Boylan, 34.] Asked whether the three who died of medical emergencies were part of the storming of the capitol, Mr Contee said he couldn’t specify if the three were actively part of the riots or entered the building. There were a lot of people on the grounds of the Capitol yesterday and I guess the extent that we can say right now is that they were on the grounds of the Capitol when they experienced their medical emergencies,” Mr Contee said.

Notice how the headline contradicts what the article reports?

Here is CNN quietly reporting on the findings of the ME’s that contradict the narrative that they’ve been pushing for a month:

According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.[!!]


And here’s what his family says:

Capitol Officer’s Family Asks Media to Not Politicize His Death as Evidence Begins to Point to an Underlying Medical Condition

“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” said Ken Sicknick. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”

The site said that on Thursday, family members were told that the officer had a blood clot and suffered a stroke and was on a ventilator.


Point #4: Undercover Ops (Ashli Babbitt)

Because of the prevalence of veterans employed by private security companies, it’s just a good idea to look closely at Ashli Babbit’s background:

The Air Force on Thursday confirmed that Babbitt, who served under the name Ashli Elizabeth McEntee, was a security forces airman who achieved the rank of senior airman, or E-4, while on active duty. According to service records released by the Air Force Personnel Center, Babbitt served more than 12 years in different parts of the Air Force. . . . 12 years in the Air Force – 6 years of those as a “Capital Guardian” tasked with “civil disturbance missions” in DC: The New York Times reports she was assigned to a unit based near Washington [DC] that is known as the “Capital Guardians” as their primary missions was defending the city. In what the Air Force calls “civil disturbance missions,” security forces in the squadron regularly train with riot shields and clubs, the report explains. As per an Air Force spokeswoman, she was deployed twice more, to the United Arab Emirates in 2012 and 2014. (ref)





She served more than a decade […] Six of those years were spent in an Air National Guard unit whose mandate is to defend the Washington region and respond to civil unrest. Its nickname: the Capital Guardians. (ref)



The Air Force on Thursday confirmed that Babbitt, who served under the name Ashli Elizabeth McEntee, was a security forces airman who achieved the rank of senior airman, or E-4, while on active duty. According to service records released by the Air Force Personnel Center, Babbitt served more than 12 years in different parts of the Air Force. . . . AFPC said later on Thursday that Babbitt deployed overseas on multiple occasions, including to Afghanistan in 2005, Iraq in 2006, and the United Arab Emirates in 2012 and 2014. Babbitt’s awards include the Iraq Campaign Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. …

The Air National Guard said that when Babbitt separated, she was with the 113th Security Forces Squadron of the DC Air National Guard which is stationed at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. [<— that’s the “Capital Guardians”] (ref)


And here is the 113th Security Forces Squadron training to “execute civil disturbance missions” at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Oct. 17, 2020, just before the 2020 election (Facebook link).
https://www.facebook.com/113WG/posts/4652688208136800

From a parapolitical perspective, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility of a number of covert groups running multiple operations that day: Provocateurs? Perhaps. Also, any number of people, including those on the job, tasked with a “civil disturbance mission” plus others – foreign, domestic, public, private intelligence entities, interested in getting into those Capitol Hill offices for a wee scrounge. In which case, the actual Trump-supporting protestors—the ones who were that—were just the idiots used for cover.

(BTW, the private security services marketplace is booming—31 Billion USD.)

There’s also the long game to consider and Biden’s ongoing crisis of legitimacy—didn’t it perfectly provide his team with just the right imagery and narrative to justify a multi-valent assault on his their political enemies and frame half of Americans as White Supremacists and dangerous domestic terrorists in need of deprogramming?

[And in case anyone reading this believes Joe Biden is an OK guy, or at least “the lesser of two evils” that justifies proudly helping get him into office, legitimately or not, here’s the video of him publicly leching over a Chris Coon’s daughter that was doing the rounds several years ago. https://youtu.be/L4OYPiV1GsY]

Image

Point #5: Follow the $Mainstream Media$

The situation wasn’t good before the Capitol Hill riot either: look at what happened to Mark Crispin Miller, NYU Professor of Media Studies, who teaches a course on propaganda and is the author of Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008. An obvious Progressive Leftist, Miller is now re-positioned by his University as a defender of white supremacy because he questioned the efficacy of wearing masks to stop the spread of covid!

But now the situation is downright hairy, see for example:


Viral #TrumpsNewArmy Video Is Liberals At Their Craziest And Scariest
General McChrystal compares MAGA rioters to Al-Qaeda
AOC proposes funding to deprogram white supremacists
Biden Taps a War on Terror Veteran to Stop White Supremacists
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), chair of the House Oversight Committee, has asked social media site Parler to release the names of their investors and creditors.
Big thing: How to deprogram America’s extremists
Tampa mayor says maskless Super Bowl partiers will be ‘identified’ and police will ‘handle’ situation

[links at source]

WTF?!

Here I want to insert just a quick comparison between Trump supporters and BLM activists:

As of June, 2020, 279 companies are on record supporting Black Lives Matter inc: Bank of America(!), Pfizer, FoxTV and DoD contractor, Cisco.


vs. this:

As of January 12, 2021, something like 30 companies have gone on record with their intention to stop providing services to Trump and Trump supporters including JPMorgan Chase, Facebook, Twitter, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Visa, American Airlines, BP, and Coca Cola.


Pro-tip: Support from banks, multinational corporations and DOD contractors is a strong indication that BLM is an Establishment—rather than outsider, or dissident—movement.

Question: Does anyone really believe they can trust the media at this point—when 15 Billionaires Own All of Americas’ News Media?:

Some billionaires, like Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg are long-time media moguls who made their fortunes in the news business. Others, like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, bought publications as a side investment after building a substantial fortune in another industry. Billionaires own part or all of several of America’s influential national newspapers, including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, in addition to magazines, local papers and online publications.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton ... 72eaa660ad

[And if no one believes they can trust the mainstream media, why are people still slavishly following it and regurgitating its narratives? Answer: because they are both hooked on and hooked into the media that delivers the message. We are sleeping human fetuses in matrix pods whose life force is powering the great AI attention harvest machinery. We are ideological carrier waves, human data streams (see this article) that can no more question the current that carries us through our mediated life-simulations than little fishies can question the existence of water. End rant.]

Point # 6: Lawfare

With that preamble out of the way, let’s get to the evidence of election fraud. Are you familiar with the term “lawfare”? It’s a way to retain power and win political and legal disputes through attrition. I saw it employed in Canada against Native Sovereigntists. There is an old law in the Canadian Constitution that is still on the books that says that Native land belongs to Natives unless there is a treaty or a sale. In BC, approximately 95% of the province is untreatied and unsold—that is a problem for all levels of government here, natch. The soveriegntists spent 20+ years trying to get courts in Canada to address this law—that would create a precedent which could be used to generally challenge any imposition of settler law on unceded lands.

That was a big problem. How the courts got around it (and get around it) is simply by refusing to address the law.

So a similar strategy is being employed with the election cases—of which there are many and some of which are very serious indeed. The media beats its drum—baseless, baseless, baseless! And the courts refuse to look at the cases. Rinse and repeat.

So is it possible that election fraud took place?

Let’s begin by bringing the thing out from under its shroud of “unthinkable” or “impossible” human activities—I mean American human activities, because it seems perfectly plausible to us in places like Cuba or Nigeria.

Let’s look at a couple of rather big cases with criminal convictions:

1. A judge, county clerk, and 5 other election officials convicted of 13 counts of election fraud for 2002, 2004, 2006 elections—mostly Democrats but also a Republican:

After a seven-week trial, a jury convicted Douglas C. Adams, Russell Cletus Maricle, William E. Stivers, Charles Wayne Jones, Freddy W. Thompson, William B. Morris, Stanley Bowling, and Debra L. Morris on every charge levied against them by the government. . . . Political candidates pooled money to buy votes and to pay “vote haulers” to deliver voters whose votes could be bought.1 In order to be paid, voters had to vote for a particular set of candidates, known as a “slate” or “ticket.” To ensure that these voters actually voted for the correct slate, co-conspiring election officers and poll workers reviewed voters’ ballots—a practice known in this case as “voting the voter.” Once the proper slate was confirmed, a token (such as a raffle ticket) or marking was given to the voters to confirm that they did in fact vote for the proper slate. Voters with the token or marking were then paid by members of the conspiracy in a location away from the polls. Conspirators retained lists of voters to avoid double payments and to keep track of whose votes could be bought in ensuing elections.

In addition to hiring vote haulers, defendants allegedly utilized other methods of buying votes. Absentee voting and voter-assistance forms helped minimize the difficulty of checking paid voters’ ballots. In the latter case, co-conspiring poll workers were permitted to be in the voting booth under the pretext that they were assisting voters; in reality, co-conspiring poll workers were confirming that voters chose the proper slates. When electronic voting machines were introduced to Clay County in the 2006 election, the conspiracy both stole and bought votes. To steal votes, conspirators, typically poll workers, purposefully misinformed voters that they did not need to click “cast ballot” on a screen that appeared after voters had selected candidates for whom they wished to vote. Co-conspiring poll workers would enter the voting booth after the voter exited and change the electronic ballot to reflect the slate before finally casting the ballot. (UNITED STATES v. ADAMS, July 17, 2013.)


2. Two [Ohio] election workers were convicted of rigging a recount of the 2004 presidential election to avoid a more thorough review.

… Jacqueline Maiden, elections coordinator of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board, and Kathleen Dreamer, a ballot manager — were each convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee. They were also convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty. 2007.


3. Here is an arrest for “vote harvesting” for Biden 2020:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today announced the arrest of Rachel Rodriguez for election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail, and unlawfully possessing an official ballot. Each charge constitutes a felony under the Texas Election Code. Rodriguez was exposed in a Project Veritas video last fall while she engaged in vote harvesting leading up to the 2020 election. The Election Fraud Division of the Office of the Attorney General reviewed dozens of hours of unedited, raw footage, which led to this arrest. In an uncharacteristic moment of honesty, Rodriguez acknowledged on video that what she was doing is illegal and that she could go to jail for it. If convicted, Rodriguez could face up to 20 years in prison. (Ref)


4. And here is a crowd-sourced public databaseof all sorts of election fraud documentation-including historical cases. It includes an analysis of the vote data from the PA public data which concludes:

191,725 mail-in ballots were touched by alterations, illegality, or anomalies according to data.PA.gov.

In Pennsylvania’s response to the Texas lawsuit, they did not address the mail-in ballot anomalies


And just in case anyone thinks this is over, here are more legal challenges to the election results coming up:

Election Cases We’re Watching
https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/

Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... e-february

Arizona Senate seeking contempt charge in election fight
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... e-in-elec/

This is the difficulty of states like Texas and Arizona: Other states, like PA, changed their state and local laws to allow for mail-in voting and No-ID voting, contrary to the Constitution, i.e., Federal law. Federal elections are governed by Federal Law (makes sense?). Therefore if some states follow strict Federal law but other states don’t, the outcome of the Federal election is de-facto non-representative. De-facto.

Point# 7: A Policy of Destabilization?

At this point I’m half convinced that there is an effort to precipitate civil strife (à la Yugoslavia, or, heaven forbid, Rwanda), especially since that Time article:

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction.


If there were a genuine interest in assuaging tension, “They” i.e., the Democratic Establishment and its corporate stake-holders, would allow a couple of these cases through the courts, just for show and then they could launch a long, drawn out, Dept of Justice investigation that makes a lot of noise and signifies nothing, just like that Mueller Report on Russian interference of the 2016 election—see, now I’m belly-laughing! Har har!

But it would calm things down. A lot.

I’m just going to jump to the end now. It seems that Trump has provoked almost every US institution to de-legitimize itself. That is profoundly destabilizing. When things are uncertain, people behave irrationally and are going to be more actively looking for scapegoats. Finding and exiling or killing a scapegoat that everyone agrees is guilty may be stabilizing, but if there isn’t agreement, it is the opposite of stabilizing. It creates a martyr and a potential uprising.

So the question is, how do we come together?

A: With graciousness?

...

There’s a very long and arduous, and potentially disheartening, journey between coat-tailing a dominant ideology (one that disguises itself as opinions posing as arguments without evidence, and that ignore facts) and brandishing the sword of Truth, capital T. The ratio of opinion to evidence in my wife’s summary above vs P*’s perspective evidences the difference between research and recycled soundbytes from mainstream punditry. Listening to NPR and Conservative Talk to get “both sides” (as P* does) is like hoping to get justice by listening to a good cop and a bad cop. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of ideological slant. If we want information, opinions founded in reality rather than ideology, we first have to leave the reservation.

This is a frightening prospect for all of us, especially (say) a white American guy with liberal progressive family and friends. Even starting to question the official version around Capitol Hill, the election, etc., could lead, in today’s climate of fear and zealotry, to getting involuntarily committed for intensive deprogramming as a potential white supremacist and/or domestic terrorist. This is no joke. The pressure being applied to conform to the dominant ideology, to uphold its opinions and parrot its non-arguments, and to keep signaling to the mob that you are not scapegoat material, is immense. And it is only growing.

I suspect this is the kind of bubble-suffocation that P*, among many others, is looking to break out of. If you are, or want to help someone who is, take baby steps. Keep quest(ion)ing; see if you can start to reformat what you think of as evidence, or what demands evidence. Question especially the assumption that more mainstream or institutionalized sources are more trustworthy, or that widely held opinions are more reliable, as compared to individual researchers who, while not without prejudice, at least are driven by a personal need to find the truth, rather than in service to larger interests.

Most of all, it pays keep in mind that the election controversy (or whatever it is that we are attempting to understand about our world) is just one pressing example of the mashup of truth and lies that’s our current mediated experience, and that it’s not really about getting to the bottom of any particular worm can, since there is no end to those worms. It is about restoring our capacity for sense-making, finding our footing in our bodies, in Nature and in the world, so that we can return to a more essential way of perceiving and navigating existence. It is about getting free from the burden of ideology and from being routinely abducted by shady UFOs in the darkest dead of night, and moving into the light of the truth that sets us free.

The crucial distinction (tacitly acknowledged in P*’s piece) is this: are we trying to sort truth from lies as a means to fortify our position in the world and establish consensus? (This is when we use a new nail to replace rather than drive out an old nail, and it always seems to require a scapegoat of one sort or another.) Or are we doing so as a means to sharpen our tool set and to gather courage for the essential movement outside consensus, beyond the world of the mediated matrix-mind, and into the unknown, where reality is?

Until then, any assignation of value (sinner-sainthood, good president vs. bad president) is besides the point or worse, like trying to build your house on a wobbly stepping stone. It is the first sign of premature conclusion, which just leads to more delusion. No ideology, opinion, argument, or body of evidence will save us. Truth is beyond even the hardest of facts, as much as it is beyond the loosest of lies. And goodness, paradoxically, exists in a realm beyond (all socialized, politicized, and languified concepts of) good and evil.


https://auticulture.com/ufos-on-capitol-hill/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Marionumber1 » Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:59 pm

I have to say that, as valid as many of Jasun's wife's big-picture points are about the serious issues with the MSM, many of the points she makes about the 2020 election and Trump are things I would take issue with.

This latest case of election fraud seems to me only unique in being so bold-faced.


Maybe it is set up to appear that way with the "evidence" disseminated through the alt-media, but much of that evidence seems to be equivocal at best if not outright shown to be false months ago. I find it hard to entertain the idea that pro-Biden fraud in the 2020 election is a far more clear-cut issue than, say, fraud for Bush in the 2004 election.

[And in case anyone reading this believes Joe Biden is an OK guy, or at least “the lesser of two evils” that justifies proudly helping get him into office, legitimately or not, here’s the video of him publicly leching over a Chris Coon’s daughter that was doing the rounds several years ago. https://youtu.be/L4OYPiV1GsY]


Biden is a creep, no doubt about it; and I would bet he is a pedophile. Yet much the same can be said for Trump. It is Trump who sexualized his daughter Ivanka on numerous occasions, pondered whether his infant daughter had inherited his then-wife's breast size, walked into the dressing room at teen pageants, has lied about his extensive association with Epstein, and was even accused of rape by an Epstein victim (something that has not happened against Bill Clinton, yet he is assumed by everyone in the alt-media to be plainly guilty while they deny the Trump accusation). So while it is valid to debate over whether Biden or Trump was the lesser evil, pedophilia is not a meaningful attribute with which to make that distinction.

3. Here is an arrest for “vote harvesting” for Biden 2020:


Everyone involved in this purported exposure is suspect. Project Veritas lost all credibility way back in 2009 following its brazen manipulation of encounters with ACORN staffers to make it appear that the organization sanctioned child sex trafficking, when in fact the staffers were either playing along with what they believed was a joke or gathering information to make a subsequent report to law enforcement. This despicable maneuver led to ACORN, a community organization that advocated for the interests of low income individuals, as well as helped them register to vote and access other essential services, closing down. As for Raquel Rodriguez's apparent disclosures, she claims that, similar to the ACORN people, she deliberately supplied inflammatory information to test her suspicion that the people speaking to her were up to no good. I don't think there is any public evidence to dispute her version of events; all we have to go on thus far is the claim from Texas attorney general Ken Paxton's office that there is incriminating evidence in the raw footage which, as per usual, Project "Veritas" never releases to the public. And in that sense, it might be worth noting that Ken Paxton has been under indictment on securities fraud since 2015 and was accused by several top aides of taking bribes while AG; it might also be worth noting that two lawyers who worked in his office were shot a month after the bribery accusations came out.

4. And here is a crowd-sourced public databaseof all sorts of election fraud documentation-including historical cases. It includes an analysis of the vote data from the PA public data which concludes:

191,725 mail-in ballots were touched by alterations, illegality, or anomalies according to data.PA.gov.

In Pennsylvania’s response to the Texas lawsuit, they did not address the mail-in ballot anomalies



I presume the reference was to this website: https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/pa-update-records/ These anomalies in the postmark and receipt dates of ballots are interesting, and could indicate something fishy going on. However, it is highly misleading to frame this as ballots being "touched by alterations, illegality, or anomalies" as this implies that the votes themselves are known to be intrinsically problematic. In reality, this could very well be bookkeeping errors in the database that was released to the public; e.g. some dates were unknown and got filled in with default values that may not be accurate. The fact that multiple ballots were listed as being applied for, approved, mailed, and received all on November 16 (nearly 2 weeks after the election) seems to be much more plausibly explained by erroneous record-keeping than some kind of election fraud operation that was manufacturing ballots and not even attempting to backdate them in a plausible manner. It is unfortunate that no one really seems to have investigated this, and I do view it as inexcusable for a state's election process to not properly authenticate its chain of custody. But this is clearly being inflated into something much more definitively fraudulent than it necessarily is. And it is not suspicious that Pennsylvania didn't address these issues in the Texas lawsuit filed by the honorable Ken Paxton; it is virtually always true that if a lawyer can get a case dismissed on a technicality, they will go for that before they get down in the mud of arguing the factual merits of the case.

This is the difficulty of states like Texas and Arizona: Other states, like PA, changed their state and local laws to allow for mail-in voting and No-ID voting, contrary to the Constitution, i.e., Federal law. Federal elections are governed by Federal Law (makes sense?). Therefore if some states follow strict Federal law but other states don’t, the outcome of the Federal election is de-facto non-representative. De-facto.


This is absolutely not true. Federal law does not prohibit mail-in voting or a lack of voter ID requirements (side: note it is absolutely disingenuous to suggest that Republican calls for voter ID are motivated by anything than a desire for voter suppression; it has been shown time and again, and I would be glad to discuss it with anyone who has doubts).
Marionumber1
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:21 pm

.

Mario -- briefly: while I can't speak for Jasun or his wife, I do not read the piece I shared as any sort of 'endorsement', or lack of awareness, of the criminality perpetrated historically by both U.S. parties (and by extension, Trump and Biden).

The piece should be assessed with these factors in mind.

Speaking only to my own perspective: any assessment of current events are undertaken with the premise that both major U.S. parties are in many respects equally criminal and complicit. The variance is only in execution over time and presentation, but the intents are the same. One can argue that referring to them as separate 'parties' is by itself illusory -- one of numerous parlor tricks employed to create wedges and seeming 'separation' across measures of control.

Within these control measures, there are likely myriad 'factions' and differing objectives -- so I'm not suggesting some sort of singular 'cabal' -- but they all have similar core goals of control and accumulation of power/influence, all to the detriment of the majority.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Marionumber1 » Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:17 pm

I agree, and certainly wasn't suggesting that the piece was seeking to endorse or rehabilitate Trump. It's more just a reflection on how the majority of "alternative" narratives tend to mainly only go after the Democrats and so-called RINOs (Bush, McCain, Romney, etc.), to the point where those topics tend to dominate what even the most well-informed parapolitical commentators discuss. That is why, for instance, you will see a mountain of purported evidence for the election being stolen from Trump even though very little of this evidence appears to be as definitive or impactful as claimed, while virtually none of these commentators will acknowledge voter suppression as a deliberate strategy of the GOP or even ask whether there could have been a failed attempt to steal the election for Trump. The main criticism I had about the piece's coverage of Trump was its suggestion that one can easily brush aside the notion of Biden as a lesser evil to Trump simply by highlighting his likely pedophilia, as if Trump does not exhibit the same thing in spades. While there are some, albeit few, issues and traits on which the two differ, pedophilia is most decidedly not one of them.
Marionumber1
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Presidential Election 2020

Postby Grizzly » Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:56 pm

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvoBvnAzJB
20 years Greg Palast has worked to expose voter suppression.
*
Final word, I guess...



Note* I posted to this already, but either nobody reads what I post or no one had any thoughts on it.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41725&p=693524#p693524
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests