Monday, November 23, 2020

Election Fraud and How To Stop It


    It was Stalin who famously said: "It doesn't matter how people vote;  what matters is who counts the votes."  

    Anyone who has ever lived through an election in Chicago knows that Stalin was a piker.  

    When I left college I lived for twelve years in Chicago -- all these years later, no doubt I'm still voting there -- and I saw for myself that there are many more ways to cheat than that.  As a general rule Republicans cheat by tossing people off the registration rolls (or artfully throwing ballots away) while Democrats stuff ballot-boxes, but either of them will use either method when it suits them.  Classical methods include:

    "Vote early -- and often":  In some states, counties and municipalities, voting registration clerks are remarkably tolerant about what they accept as identification for voting.  It's dismayingly easy for somebody to get several forms of ID and register several times over.

    "This city is so democratic that even the dead can vote": Doting registration clerks must be sternly warned (and watched) about a lot of people signing up to vote who have the same address, differentiated only by "suite" or "apartment" numbers;  such addresses should be checked against the tax records to see if the address is truly a large apartment building, a resident hospital, or a cemetery.

    "Vote once, vote always": Despite state laws which insist that a registered voter who hasn't voted for two elections must be taken off the rolls, a lot of registration clerks somehow fail to remove such entries -- sometimes for decades -- leaving available names for other people to use with less-than-accurate ID.

    "Unfit ballots": In some states "illegible" or otherwise "marred" ballots are rejected out of hand, instead of being relegated to "provisional" status where they can be examined further.  In such states, a bit of pencil-lead tucked under a fingernail can be used to swipe across a ballot, thus "marring" it, without being spotted by a poll-watcher -- and there are other methods.  

    "The wrong box": In states where "marred" or otherwise questionable ballots must be put in the "provisional" category for further examination, it's possible to sneak perfectly good ballots into the "provisional" category -- or even the trash-basket -- if the poll-watchers aren't looking, and there are many ways to distract a poll-watcher.

    "Midnight Donation": After the polling-place closes, a vehicle pulls up to the back door, but instead of taking in boxes of ballots, it drops some off.  They've been filled out before-hand, and now they're mixed in with the ballots from the polling-place.

    "Lost in transit": Ballots on their way to a counting-center are usually packed in labeled boxes and transported by a vehicle with a driver and a witness -- but sometimes there are shortages of personnel and only one driver transports the boxes.  It's easy for a box or two to "fall off the truck", especially if the poll they're coming from has a history of getting a lot of votes for one party in particular.    

    "Too far to see": A more blatant cheat, this consists of keeping poll-watchers from the "wrong" party out of the polling-place or counting-center, or stationed too far away to see what the counters are doing.

    "Lopsided": Poll-watchers are supposed to represent all available political parties, but there's usually a preponderance of watchers from one party or another.  Quiet collusions can occur.

    With the present fad for mail-in voting the possibility of cheats increases.  New tactics can include:

    "Blizzard": In most states voters who want to vote by mail must register at their local or county registrar's office, in person, showing adequate ID, and deliberately ask for mail-in ballots.  Usually this is granted without question.  Some states require a reason, but acceptable reasons are military service, distance from a polling place, or health requirements;  avoiding a plague is definitely an adequate reason.  The problem with voting by mail is that the filled out and returned ballot contains no proof of the voter's identity except the registration number and the voter's signature on the ballot's envelope.  It's rare that any mail-in ballot that isn't "marred" or "questionable" has its voter's signature checked against the signature on the original registration application.  When mail-in ballots are broadcast to every registered voter in the book, inevitably some of them will go to addresses -- and names -- of voters no longer actually there.  Such can be used by anyone who finds them.  

    "Interception": Where there are a lot of mail-in ballots, less-than-scrupulous mail-carriers, or even local post offices, can quietly divert ballots from neighborhoods known to vote a certain way -- and a certain percentage of those ballots can even-more-quietly disappear.

    "Harvesting": When there are so many mail-in voters that the post office might be overwhelmed, there are always friendly officials willing to provide "drop-off boxes" to help out.  There's no guarantee that whoever comes to collect those drop-off boxes will deliver them to legitimate polling places.

    Ah, but the use of computers for recording and tallying votes would make Stalin wet his pants.  Consider the case of Diebold Election Systems, center of a voting scandal a few years back: 

     https://www.propublica.org/article/the-market-for-voting-machines-is-broken-this-company-has-thrived-in-it  

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

    And then there's the parallel case of Dominion Voting Systems, which was caught "flipping" some 6000 pro-Trump votes to pro-Biden:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/us-voting-machine-private-companies-voter-registration 

    These are the reasons why I laughed my @ss off when I heard various Democrats piously insist that there is "no evidence" of voter fraud in the 2020 election.  There are plenty of accusations -- including the "Sharpiegate" case of disqualifying ballots right here in my home county -- and all of them need to be investigated before the final decision on this election can be settled.

    So there's the problem.  Now, what can we do about it?

    First, we must stop using the damned computers.  Go back to using solid paper ballots and counting them by hand, with adequate poll-watchers -- of all political parties -- watching.  That would include Libertarians and Independents, and secure high-resolution video-cameras too.

    Second, go back to giving mail-in ballots only to voters who specifically ask for them.  

    Third, devise a third method of proving the identity of a mail-in voter on or inside the ballot's envelope;  this could be as simple as requiring a xerox copy of the driver's license, and maybe passport, along with the ballot.  

    Fourth, put secure videocams on "drop-off" boxes and inside post offices during the days when mail-in ballots are dropped off.  Also have secure cameras watching not only the polling-places themselves but their back doors and parking lots.    

    Fifth, call in the state police if necessary, but make sure that the collected ballots are never out of sight from the moment they're filled out until they arrive at the vote-counting center -- and after.  The "chain of custody" must be ironclad.  This applies to the "provisional" ballots too.

    Sixth, print no more ballots than there are registered voters in the state.  "Same day" registration must be totally outlawed.  

    Seventh, stop using "private" voting systems completely.  Elect the state's Electors early, and have the Electors themselves conduct the election.  That was the original function of the Electoral College:  to guarantee that the people who conducted an election were themselves elected, and therefore under the control of the voters.

    I doubt if this will stop absolutely all election fraud, since cheats will always find a way when the stakes are high, but it will make the frauds a lot more difficult.

--Leslie <;)))><  


      

Monday, November 16, 2020

A Conversation on Psionics


    Now for something completely difference: a discussion at a WorldCon party, a few years ago, on the subject of psychic phenomena.

    I don't remember which WorldCon it was (I've been to so many, they begin to blur together), but by some forgotten circumstances I wound up in the Con Suite, nursing a beer and nibbling some pretzels, at a table with a gritty-looking middle-aged guy who's badge wasn't visible, grousing about the lousy state of science education in the public schools.  Eventually Mr. Gritty got around to sneering at the number of college students these days who "actually believe in" psychic phenomena.  

    At that point I felt that I should chime in on the side of forgotten facts.  I didn't quote the large and growing body of established evidence, since I didn't have access to the records at the time, but instead claimed:  "Well, in my case I've got no choice;  I've not only seen it done, but I've done it myself -- several times."

    "Oh yeah?" he countered.  "So what am I thinking about right now?"  And he squeezed his eyes tight shut, concentrating.

    The answer to that was almost too easy.  "Some big long number that doesn't mean anything to me, although it... hmmm, has something to do with... avocados?"

    He snapped his eyes open, and couldn't help correcting: "Avogadro's number."

    "Still means nothing to me," I said.  "The talent doesn't make you all-knowing, and it isn't easy, and because it works through a human nervous system, it's not 100% accurate.  And even under the best of circumstances, it's hard to prove it's real to a determined skeptic.  For instance, I could tell you about incidents where information that I couldn't have gotten any other way saved my neck -- but then, you'd say I was lying, or remembering wrong.  Or I could drop into alpha-trance state, lay hands on your bare skin and tell you things about yourself that you haven't told me---"

    He jerked his bare forearm out of my reach.

    "--but then, you'd say I was just making good guesses, or must have heard something from somebody else and consciously forgotten about it.:

    He couldn't help smirking at that.

    "No, about the only psychic talent that would prove its existence is telekinesis -- moving physical objects with psychic energy alone.  And of course that's the rarest and weakest of the psychic talents."

    Oh?  Why is that?"

    Because moving matter around takes a lot more energy than transmitting information, because there's a helluva lot more energy tied up in matter.  E equals MC squared, and no matter how you slice it, C is one helluva big number.  The human brain doesn't really have much energy to play around with.  I think a brain at full gallop produces only 25 volts of energy -- or is it joules?  I forget -- and at least 7 of those are tied up in basic maintenance: things like maintaining your heartbeat, breathing, working the guts and glands -- stuff like that.  That leaves, what, 18 volts, at most?  And keeping even that much focused and aimed isn't easy."

    "But you say you can do it?"

    "Yes, but mostly on small stuff: moving a column of cigarette smoke, nudging rolling dice, little things like that."

    He broke off a piece of a pretzel, set it on the table and said: "There.  Move that."

    I tried, and managed to feel my way into the piece of pretzel, but I couldn't find enough resonance to move it.  "I can't,"  I admitted.  "It's too heavy."

    "Dice are a lot heavier."

    "I can't move a stationary die, either," I explained.  "I can only nudge them while they're in motion -- sort of like the working of a transistor: using a little energy to divert a lot.  I've learned how to feel my way into dice, though it's tough because they're made out of plastic.  Metals and crystals are a lot easier.  Plastic is like a tangle of dried spaghetti;  there's enough space between the molecules to make it sort of like a sponge, and you can fill that sponge with psychic energy the way you fill a regular sponge with water.  Again, that's easier with metals or crystals.  But anyway, once I've got the energy in there, I sort of create a mood in it;  I make the dice want to land in a certain position -- ones down, sixes up.  I call it 'tits down, teeth up'.  Then I shake the dice -- in my cupped hands or in a real cup -- until I can feel the precise instant when, if I drop the dice right then, they'll land the right way.  It works about two-thirds of the time."

    "Then why," he bristled, "Haven't you gone to Las Vegas and cleaned up at the craps tables?"

    "I did," I said.  "Last time I was passing through Las Vegas with my publishers, we stayed overnight and spent a couple hours in the casino.  I used my talent then.  And guess what I found out."

    "What?"

    "That proper, respectable, rrrrrrreputable scientists may not believe in psychic phenomena, but Las Vegas croupiers do."

    "In what way?"

    "Well, when the guys running the table saw that I was rolling up the six-face way too often for chance, first they changed the dice on me.  Then they changed them again.  When that didn't stop me, they tried shouting at me -- 'Come on, throw already!  Quit holding up the line!  Throw!' -- in order to break my concentration.  When that didn't stop me, they sent in a spoiler disguised as an amiable drunk.  He slapped an arm around my shoulders and mumbled cheerfully: 'Hi.  I'm from St. Louis.  Where're you from?'  So I answered and shook hands and chatted politely until it came my turn to throw the dice again, and he kept his hand on my shoulder while I shook and threw the dice -- and came up with a double-six. After that he gave up.  I don't know what he signaled to the croupiers, but they called out that they were closing the table for 'maintenance', so we wandered off elsewhere.  I'd been making only one-dollar bets, so my winnings after an hour and a half of playing were all of ninety dollars;  not exactly a big score, but satisfying."

    "Do you have any witnesses for this story?"

    "Sure.  My publishers were right there at the table with me.  They're in the dealers' room right now, if you want to talk to them."

    "...Do you think you could move smaller objects?"

    "Sure," I enthused.  "I'd love to get access to a bubble-chamber, or a cloud-chamber.  I'm sure I can push atom-trails around, and that would give us conclusive proof. Say, do you know where I could get access to something like that?"

    "Maybe," he muttered.  Then he took his cup, got up and went back to the bar.  

    I didn't see him again, not through the whole convention.  I guess he lost interest in the subject.


--Leslie <;)))>< Fish  


    

          

Monday, November 9, 2020

For-Biden Planet


For those few of you who have never seen the classic movie (IMHO the best acting job that Leslie Neilson ever did), the big secret was that the aliens created a powerful machine that could turn thought into solid reality -- and it destroyed them in short order.  

As an old propagandist myself, I can tell you that, unless your statements are 99.9% factual and verified, the worst thing you can do is believe your own propaganda, and act on it.  That way lies ruin. 

Now the US' Democrat Party today controls the greatest propaganda machine ever invented -- better than the USSR's at its height, better than Red China's, better than North Korea's, better than Nazi Germany's Goebbels could even dream about.  It heavily influences or outright controls the educational system, the news media, the entertainment industry and even the communications industry.  About all that it can't influence or control is direct private communication via telephone, email, and hard-copy mail by the Post Office -- and the public library system, which it seems to have forgotten about.  It's been a long time since anyone tried to purge the books in local libraries for political incorrectitude.  

With that kind of control comes a certain laziness, an assumption that everybody just naturally believes the way you do, and there's increasingly less need to provide proof for your claims.  When questioned by one of the uncouth idiots who don't share your view, you need only make more claims, louder and faster.  This eventually leads to spiraling the drain into self-contained fantasy, which ends in ruin.

When seeing that the propaganda doesn't match reality, and a lot of the "peasants" can see it, one recourse is to create False Flags: public theater with live actors, which supports the ruling scenario and which the general propaganda machine can then echo endlessly.  This can involve creating political movements whole-cloth, or near it;  that can be risky, because the actors may outrun the director and take the play to extremes that the script-writers never intended.  In such a case, the propaganda machine must work overtime on damage control.

A classic example is the role of BLM.  Founded by a clutch of admitted Marxist women, its avowed purpose was to "transform society" -- into what soon became apparent.  The Democrats, and especially the Socialist Democrat faction, happily embraced BLM and used it to raise mass protests -- generally aimed at Trump and any of his followers.  The problem was that the "protests" soon became screens for riots, looting and burning, often organized by local criminal gangs.  Despite the best editing and excuses of the media, citizens at large saw all this and identified BLM as a threat, pure and simple.  This became a problem to the Democrats as the election approached.  In the last few weeks before the election, the Democratic National Committee clearly told BLM to tone it down, do no more "protests", and stop scaring the voters -- and BLM visibly complied.  That's also when Biden's campaign began preaching soothing messages about "ending divisiveness", "unity", "healing", and so on.  

Even so, the DNC didn't trust to its massive propaganda campaign to win the election.  There have always been frauds during elections, and some of the most entrenched are in large Democrat-led cities.  Chicago, Newark, and Baltimore are notorious for it.  The push for mail-in ballots added to the possibilities, since mail-in ballots do not require the voter to show valid identification before handing in his/her ballot.  There were complaints about election frauds and improprieties in many states well before election day, and a growing number afterward.  Despite the best excuses by the DNC's propaganda machine, these can't all be written off as sour-grapes fakes;  the DOJ is taking a lot of them seriously, and there are more than a dozen such complaints.  

It was certainly premature of Biden and friends to claim victory while there are still five more states that haven't finished counting their ballots, and four of them have outstanding investigations into vote-fraud.  Why did the DNC do it?  The only sensible answer is propaganda-pushing: claiming that now we're "back to normal", "healing", and "unity" -- behind the Democrat political agenda, which has been losing popularity.  It's also an unstated promise to the rest of the world to undo all the actions done by Trump during his administration.  This is not as popular with the electorate as the DNC would wish.

In short, what we're seeing is the DNC propaganda machine going all-out to convince the "peasants" that the election is settled and done and we're all going back to Obama-era "normalcy" right now -- and only un-American sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/Islamophobic/White supremacist Republicans will dare to complain.  

This overlooks the fact that even if one accepts the Biden campaign ballot claims, the election was a very tight horse-race, not the "blue wave" that the news media were predicting.  Almost exactly half the population didn't buy the propaganda-campaign's story, and doesn't believe it now.  As the multiple lawsuits and investigations progress, they'll believe it still less -- and all the censorship in the country won't stop the story from getting out.  The Democrats will not have the "unity" they've been trying for.  

If Biden finally wins, he'll have a resentful and divided populace to rule.  If the investigations reveal that the final accurate count gives the election to Trump, then all the "protest" riots Antifa-BLM can manage will not scare the citizens into accepting Biden.  The "divisiveness" which the DNC created it now cannot stop, and it will blow up in the Dems' faces.  

Those "monsters from the Id" will come home to roost, and not prettily.  Even the best propaganda machine in the world can't guarantee absolute power, thank all the gods in agreement.


--Leslie <;)))><         

        

 

Sunday, November 1, 2020

False Flagging: An Example

 

A "False Flag" campaign is provocateering written large, and provocateering slides over the line from "incitement to crime", to "solicitation of crime", and outright "entrapment".  

In finer detail, "incitement" is some politician or mullah standing up in public and howling "kill the Jews!" (or whoever) -- and it's considered a crime only if someone in his audience really does go out and kill some Jews.  "Solicitation" is some Mafia don telling his consigliere, "Eh Luigi, ten thousand clams to send Giuseppi to sleep with the fishes", and a corpse named Giuseppi really does wash up on the shore a couple days later.  "Entrapment" is a cop nudging and hinting to some not-too-bright street punk to go commit a crime that the punk wouldn't have thought of for himself so that the cop can then arrest him.  All of these are one step outside the legal protections of the First Amendment, and are unlawful to varying degrees.

Illegal or not, you'll find government agents -- usually undercover police -- practicing "entrapment" by provocateering.  They usually do it under the excuse that the punks involved really would have thought of the crime anyway, and the provocateer was only nudging them a little bit down a path they'd already chosen for themselves.  To prove this, the provocateer must produce some statement by the targeted punks -- witnessed, recorded or written -- which could be construed, by a sufficiently paranoid judge, at least, as intent to commit a crime.  Such statements can be as little as a chanted slogan of "Off the Pigs", or a drunken complaint of "somebody oughtta shoot that Democrat S.O.B.".  After all, the individual or group had to have said something, sometime, that brought them to the attention of the police in the first place.  The provocateer can be a single agent within a small group, or a collection of them within a large group.  In any case, the aim of the provocateer is to get the individual, or group, to do something -- or at least appear in public to do something -- that can get them arrested, or at least publicly vilified and shunned, and all their possible political associates with them.  This is especially useful when police budget-reviews or general elections are coming up.  

Police usually target an individual -- or more often, a group -- for provocateering for political reasons, no matter what the direction of the individual's or group's politics may be.  Those of us who remember marching in the streets to protest various wars can also remember that, in any group big enough to need more than a single living-room for meetings, there was always somebody -- who had joined the group well after its inception and first activities -- who seemed just a little bit "off": just a little too eager, too imaginative, too questioning, too friendly, too willing to come up with activities that pushed the boundaries of the law, and who always had plenty of money for beer and pizzas.  We can also remember that in any protest or picket-line there was always somebody who was a little too provocative toward the police, willing to literally push other marchers at the police in order to get a violent response.  We can also remember the large marches in which knots of "weirdos" showed up, literally carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, to quote John Lennon, who tried to capture the attention of the media cameras so as to make all the marchers look like foaming Communists by association.  Those were the days before the fall of the USSR, when communism was considered a serious threat.

Nowadays, when nobody even mentions the word "communist" except possibly in connection with the Chinese government, "Socialism" has become respectable enough that major candidates of major political parties happily label themselves with it.  Of course, this means that they must brand their political opponents as "right-wingers", "White Supremacists", and "Neo-Nazis", regardless of the facts, and their media and police agents have adjusted their aim accordingly.

One advantage of this modern era of massive electronic media and communications is that the agents provocateur don't necessarily have to find an already existing group of political opponents to entrap;  they can create one whole-cloth and use it as if it were real.  

For example -- I'll name no names -- there was a group of college students (majoring in Computer Science, IIRC) who invented what they considered a "right-wing nut group" out of nothing but a website they established as a joke.  On this website they posted classic Nazi quotes and slogans and propaganda cartoons, slightly updated for modern tastes, aimed at modern political figures and groups, and of course adoring President Trump.  Eventually they began getting responses, apparently from real right-wing nuts.  

Realizing that they were onto something here, the students notified the police -- particularly the FBI -- handed the website over to them, and thoroughly disassociated themselves from it, leaving the police to make use of the site and its followers.  At this point the joke became a full-fledged False Flag operation.  Soon the media began to notice the "right-wing group" and sound alarms about it.  Once the media were sufficiently excited they went after Trump, demanding that he denounce his "right-wing extremist" followers.  Trump, admitting that he didn't know anything about the group, denounced extremists of all stripes.  This didn't satisfy the media, who demanded more, whereupon Trump made his much-copied statement: "If you really are listening to me, then stand down and stand back".  Democrat political pundits claimed that this meant Trump really did command the group, and what he'd really told them was to stand by for further actions.

When no "actions" happened, the website exhorted its followers to go to a pro-Trump rally to "show support for Trump" and to "protect Americans" from expected Antifa and BLM protesters.  The police then prepared for a jolly brawl at the rally, planning to round up all the "right-wing extremists" in a big showy bust.  Preparations included having lots of undercover agents in the crowd, dressed to look like possible "extremists" so as to blend with the expected crowd.  

Well, the only "confrontation" was caused by the Antifa/BLM protesters, whom the local police quickly rounded up.  The "right-wing extremist" crowd was remarkably small, and when the police swooped down on the supposed Nazis they found one -- exactly one -- admitted member of the group, and he was a certified schizophrenic who had gone off his meds.  All the rest of the supposed "right-wing extremists" were undercover cops.  Every last one.  The lone psycho was gently escorted to the nearest hospital, and the whole incident was quietly buried by the media.  

This is the drawback to using invented opposition groups for "False Flag" operations;  when pushed to action, they just might collapse like a soap-bubble, leaving nobody to arrest or use as a scarecrow.  Actually existing political groups can be exaggerated and slandered with better results, and not just by local police and politicians but even by foreign agents -- unless the group's members are smart enough to see what's happening and fight back.

A classic example of this is the case of the "Proud Boys", a group of moderate-right Republicans who were annoyed by the antics of Antifa/BLM, and made a point of counter-protesting Antifa/BLM protests by, if you please, getting proper permits and then sitting down in the streets and praying.  When asked by the police to get up and move, they would obligingly get up and move.  This made it difficult for police to arrest them, or for the media to get videos that would make them look dangerous.  Nonetheless, the media advertised the group as "right-wing extremists" and of course "White supremacists".  This claim was partly punctured on the Internet, where it was revealed that the "Proud Boys" are multi-racial, and their president/founder is a Black ex-Cuban.

Nonetheless, a group of foreign hackers with no love for Trump decided to make use of the Proud Boys.  The hackers obtained names, addresses, and email addresses of voters in a largely Democrat-registered neighborhood -- no great feat, since voter registration rolls are public records anyway -- and sent them mass-produced letters, threatening them with mayhem if they didn't vote for Trump, in the name of the Proud Boys organization.  Of course the media picked up the story and responded with the expected outrage.  This trick, a classic False Flag tactic, was intended to panic other voters into casting their ballots against Trump and his supposed "right-wing extremist base"

Ah, but the Proud Boys, unlike a lot of right-trending groups, were no fools.  As soon as they learned what was happening, they got copies of those emails and went hollering to every federal police-force they could reach -- election tampering being a federal crime -- insisted that they had nothing to do with this, they were being slandered, and the cops should go catch the real criminals.  The FBI, DOJ and State Department took them seriously, and investigated promptly.  What they discovered was that the emails originated with a bunch of government-sanctioned hackers -- in Iran.  

With all the uproar, and all those federal agencies involved, the story couldn't be smothered.  The Proud Boys were publicly exonerated -- though a few die-hard Democrats kept insisting that the PBs simply had to be some sort of "right-wing extremists" -- and the voters saw that Iran doesn't want Trump re-elected, and that they shouldn't be too quick to believe political scandal stories without verification.  The trick backfired, and the term "False Flag" has become commonly known.

This is all to the good, since a cynical electorate is not so easy to fool.  Let's see what the final effect is when the votes are counted, since the only poll that really matters is the one where people vote.

--Leslie <;)))>< Fish