Just a little more about the election outcome, and then back to business. As I see it, the writers and commenters here at this blog are the happiest people in the country, as we knew not the outcome of the election, but only that it did not matter. In our current system we have no idea of how many people vote or who they vote for. But first some background.
Our leaders do not think we are capable of self-governance. The republican form of government has always been distrusted. So throughout history they have monkeyed with elections to assure that the ‘right’ people get elected.
So self-rule has always been, largely, an illusion. Voting is a palliative, perhaps even a placebo. Election outcomes are under oligarchical control. Let me count the ways …
- Control the choices: Last night’s choice, Trump and Clinton, was no choice at all, as each candidate was appointed to run and scripted throughout the race. Neither were new or different or willing to buck real power. They were empty vessels, just reading their lines. That’s normally the case for any high office. They must check their souls at the door.
- Lead the opposition: The oligarchy cannot keep popular movements from arising, but they can and do get their own people get out to lead them. Thus did FDR take the helm during a time when labor was strong. He was used to limit labor’s power and plunged us into war. Both Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy in were used 1968 to keep control of a real antiwar movement. Here’s a key to identifying false leaders: We know their names. Ask yourself why we know about Julian Assange, Michael Moore, Edward Snowden … why was Bernie Sanders allowed to gain such traction? It is because they are fakes.
- Rig the vote: This is far more common in our history than known. 1948 and 1960 are poster children for use of the mob to determine the outcome of an election, but I’ve no doubt muscle has been used from the beginning. In addition, 1980 and 1988, 2000 and 2004 were all rigged, as I see it – I just cannot fathom that anyone named “Bush” has ever won an election for real.
- Run interference: Third party candidates do not make a difference unless allowed to do so. If they can be used to advantage by the major parties, then they will have an impact. Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose run assured the election of JP Morgan’s man Woodrow Wilson in 1912, and H. Ross Perot and the American Independence party the same for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. These “movements” are only used when needed to elevate an otherwise unelectable minority candidate to power. (Bill Clinton, like the Bush’s, never legitimately won an election.)
- Rig the vote count: If they can control the count, they need not worry about the outcome. Thus 2000 and Bush vs Gore.
The year 2000 was a watershed. The fake controversy in Florida between Bush and Gore had another purpose besides determining the winner of the election. After all, Dade County elections have been rigged at least since the early 1970s when the Collier brothers wrote their book Votescam. If the real object of that spectacle was to steal the election for Bush, it could have been done easily and quietly. Instead, we had a huge public spectacle. Why?
The Bush/Gore affair assured passage of HAVA, or Help America Vote Act. That law brought in the era of electronic voting machines, now used in every state. These machines, black boxes that are easily hacked and basically unauditable, can change the outcome of any election.
With black boxes any election can be rigged anytime. Since that is the case, there is now no need to count votes. Therefore, it is easy to see that votes are not counted.
Last night’s election was a sham. We have no idea how many people voted, or who they voted for. I am therefore proud that I did not vote.
56 thoughts on “Elections are too important to be left to voters”
Mark you really have a knack for cutting to the chase and laying out the essentials in a clear, straightforward way.
I have to say that I am surprised by what a punch in the gut Trump’s victory was to me. I know that “it doesn’t matter” in the bigger scheme of things and that it was pre-ordained. But on the margins it does matter, and it tells us something about what they have in store in the short run. I for one am not looking forward to see what havoc Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress are about to unleash. I sincerely did not think a Trump presidency was part of their game plan, and I think that my confidence in that belief allowed me to be very blasé about the whole thing. But I now find myself feeling uneasy and somewhat anxious about where this is all going.
I hear what you are saying, but looking back over eight years of Obama suggest that he has done as much damage as any Trump could have done, or any Clinton. Trump was reading a script during the campaign, and now we will have to wait and see what we really have there, as with Obama.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I sure hope you’re right, Mark. The way they went into overdrive inflaming racial and religious antagonisms with hoax after hoax in the lead up to the election has me thinking that they are about to turn up the heat.
So what if Trump managed to rig the election 2016? Biden rigged it better 2020! Or you don’t suppose he’d be getting more black votes than Obama? LOL. It’s been rigged all along, and I guess the party that pays the heftier sum gets the PRO VOTE RIGGING TEAM of asshats.
Intense focus on the selected candidates, like Bernie, Hillary and Trump block our view of American democracy’s bankruptcy. It’s like watching a continuous loop of Peter Pan clips when we’re all supposed to clap for Tinkerbell.
Trump, our new hero-archetype just dropped the house on the Wicked Witch of the East. Munchkins will celebrate, no doubt. But, is he a “good witch, or a bad witch?” And, who gets to wear the the ruby slippers? Bill (next of kin)?
Since the media is wholly owned and controlled by TPTB, Inc., why would they even bother counting votes? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to learn that these electronic voting machines are nothing but a box with buttons on it; no tabulating capability at all. Since the only way anyone knows any election results is from media reporting, why bother counting at all? If all of the approximately 240 million voting age Americans went to the polls and 100% of the wrote in Vermin Supreme, who would be the wiser when later that evening CNN said Trump wins?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you… There is no reason to actually tabulate votes, and I’m beginning to doubt that they do.
The whole charade could just be a TV show, and they simply put up colorful graphics and fake % numbers. Who would be the wiser?
LikeLiked by 1 person
My teenage son asked me that very question last night as we watched a bit of the returns: How do we know that these numbers correspond to anything in the real world? I gave some mindless answer about how the individual precinct results must be published somewhere, and that the precinct team leaders would probably notice if there was a discrepancy, so the fraud must happen before the counting takes place. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I have absolutely no evidence for this opinion.
Superb synopsis, Mark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great point, but I do think they count the votes secretly in order to keep a finger on the pulse of who is voting for whom. This kind of thing makes it much easier to “market” whatever BS they’re selling AND to see how much of the population they’re still fooling.
I think they have real, secret and unpublished polls to keep a finger in the pulse.
I believe that’s true, but at the end of the day there is no substitution for measuring actual voting behavior (who voted and for whom). There is always a gap between what people say they do, did or are going to do and what they actually do. In other words, people are prone to give pollsters socially acceptable answers even if it means lying through their teeth.
My son said something else interesting … “This is just like a sports broadcast, isn’t it?” He was so right: the way the newspeople build up suspense and speculate on every possible scenario was a LOT like the way they call a football game.
Because I have limited tolerance for any one brand of baloney, I flipped the channels a good deal last night. At around 11:30 I noted two different networks (CBS and CNN, I think) using the analogy of Hillary Clinton needing to “draw to an inside straight” by that point in the electoral tally.
Hard to deny they are not sharing prepared scripts for these things.
Bright son you have there! I have no doubt there is a script, and that all news comes from one central source. Daily Show, when I watched it 2007 to 2012 or so, did segments where news readers were obviously reading from the same script, using the same phrases highly unlikely to be arrived at independently. Last night they deliberately held back on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania to increase suspense. No doubt they know we are jumping channels, but I think ad revenue might take a back seat to propaganda on election night. The show must go on.
Like Daddieuhoh, I also felt like I was punched in the gut with the results. I figured they were going to elect Hillary to push the gender neutrality gig, but now I see they are going for the gender conflict instead. In hindsight, I should have guessed it was Trump. If it was Hillary, we would’ve seen more female presidents in movies and TV due to predictive programming but instead we saw evil patriarchs, which I mentioned in my Armageddon post.
I wish I could say I don’t care, but I have empathy for the amount of frustration, demoralization, and hatred running through the veins of millions of Americans who can’t believe what just happened and don’t understand. I am not looking forward to how Trump is going to blackwash men as leaders over the next 4-8 years, and bring subconscious disdain between the sexes and open the door to “that’s the last man I’m ever voting for” or “a women would never screw up this bad” memes to appear soon.
It is a cartoon situation the public was beaten over the head with until they submitted, the fake car fires notwithstanding. Lots of complaining on Facebook today, but more people than I expected came out of the woodwork to admit they voted Trump. The anti-Hillary campaign with the emails, health issues, and “criminal” persona worked to get people to choose a ridiculous choice like Trump.
Now of course I realize the votes don’t count, but in order for this outcome to be accepted the public needs to believe millions of voters actually voted Trump. That’s why they were forced to pump up Trump and make Hillary look worse than she ever has. A theme pushed in the media today is “The American People Have Spoken”. The only thing more demoralizing than having someone like Trump in power is making everyone believe that he was voted in fair and square, and direct all the anger and frustration towards their fellow Americans. Expect more nihilist memes and “life sucks” talk/alcohol and Marijuana addiction to become commonplace and socially accepted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I was still asleep I was shocked that George W was re-elected to a second presidential term and was very angry at my fellow American citizens that they were so stupid as to vote him in again, so I can attest to the effectiveness of directing anger and frustration towards fellow Americans. I also thought that maybe America should be divided (modern day civil war effective split) so we can have a division of a progressive states & conservative states so each group can finally start getting what they want (which is interesting in hind sight as the controllers do want us divided in spirit). One good thing that did come out of that George W result was that I stopped reading newspapers and watching television as I was equally pissed at the media.
I was also thinking about the numbers being fiction this morning. It’s possible that they’re fudged way up. The actual vote fraud is probably not about one candidate versus another, it’s more likely fraud on the psychological perceptions of US citizens. Here’s my rough analysis. I started with the question, did 118 million people really vote, which led me to dig around for some other numbers to make sense of things. There’s about 244 million potential voters in the US but only 146 million registered to vote. So, there are an admitted (approximately) 100 million people who choose not to vote. Then there’s the 146 million registered voters minus the 118 million that voted, for an additional 28 million non-voters. We’re looking at 128 million people who are not voting, give or take. That’s already 50% of all potential voters (rough estimate). So we get distracted by various voter ID battles and various worries about machine-rigging and absentee-ballot stuffing, but what’s the missing story that’s staring us in the face?
I don’t mind being wrong on this and I haven’t spent a whole lot of time because it’s a new idea. But it sure seems to me that the amount of people not voting could be much larger than the numbers that we can reasonably calculate from Wiki and other websites that archive demographics and voting behavior. What if those numbers are actually 60% or 70% or 80%? What if the US population is so alienated, depressed, distracted, dis-engaged, cynical, Prozac’d, etc. that they can barely get it up to vote?
What would the break-off point be for the herd managers? Where would it become more dangerous than it’s worth. I mean, obviously there’s some upper-limit to what’s tolerable. If 9 out of 10 people didn’t vote, that would be pretty apparent at some point. No doubt they really don’t want a lot of participation, contrary to their seeming activist propaganda and activity. Maybe they need just enough to give the whole thing the right amount of cover and the proper demographic profile. From the looks of things, we’re all just a bunch of extras in the movie for the most part.
How would anybody know? I’ve noticed for years that people are a bit discreet on the day before, of and after elections. Part of that is accounted for by the known non-participation. But how much bigger could it be and how would a person have any sense of it by talking to say, 10 people at a bar, a few people at work and whoever he spends most of his time with? When somebody asks me about voting, I just say I don’t like to encourage politicians, as an easy out. But I think most of us are pretty careful about asking and even answering others, at least that’s my experience. I don’t usually hear too many folks talking about their vote and I hang out with a lot of people in relatively casual environments where it would be easy for them to do so. I do hear a lot of political commentary though, but that’s a different animal.
And IF the real numbers were much higher, what would that say to all the folks who might well be part of a VAST MAJORITY, but who are walking around ashamed or surly or lazy or cynical or broken? What if the hoopla carnival-show is mainly run to convince the non-participants that it’s really real and that there really are those mega-millions of their fellow citizens who don’t feel the way they do? If I were an elite manager of this chunk of the global turf, I think I’d want the marks to believe in the casino. Joel Barlow understood that in the 1790’s when he wrote Advice To The Privileged Orders and commented that governments were more successful by the arts of stealing than of plunder and thus constitutionally-ordered societies filled-up the coffers with the least amount of trouble and the most amount of cooperation because people were more productive and less able to ascertain what was being taken.
What’s it worth? How much would they spend on the gas-lighting of 128 million plus people? Probably a whole lot if this odd hypothesis holds water and if the numbers I dug up are close to real and if I analyzed them correctly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Better stated last part would be – What’s it worth? How much would they spend on gas-lighting everyone, but particularly the 128 million PLUS, who are out of the picture, in order help them rationalize staying out of the picture, because all those mega-millions of others have it covered and it doesn’t really matter anyway.
So maybe, even if they got to that 90% non-participation level, and people were sufficiently alienated and conditioned to just watch the stage-show and go about their business, maybe there’s no real problem. How long could things go with everyone you know saying they didn’t vote but you all watched the stage show and it said different? Maybe they do one of those reverse-negative things at some point, like the opening scenes of that old TV series Dark Shadows. At the point where it didn’t matter for some reason or another.
That’s a really useful comment, and I like that you’re not afraid to make a mistake. You are obviously not a product of our education system.
I am taking a leap myself, viewing the whole election affair as a Truman Show type of thing, nothing real, everything fake. For instance, I tried to get some results from my old home state, Montana, this morning, and there is very little available, yet the networks would have us believe that everything was miraculously tabulated by 10 PM last night, the age of computers.
Here in Colorado we vote by paper ballot, tabulated on electronic machines. So there is a paper record. Do they actually audit elections to make sure that the machines are accurate? They say so, and maybe Colorado is the exception, but I have my doubts. There are rules in place that can force a recount, but usually it has to be extremely close, and the losing candidate has to foot the bill. That is done to discourage recounts so that even having a paper record, it is then not used to firm up the outcome.
The book Votescam is instructive. The Collier brothers noticed that Dade County even in the early seventies, the TV stations were posting election results before voting machines could possibly have tabulated them. They entered the rabbit hole and years later came out, scarred and discouraged, at one point having a young Janet Reno scare the pants off their attorney. Yikes!
So I wonder even not having the results of local elections yet available how TV news shows last night knew the outcome.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve long held the opinion that the lottery is nothing more than a voluntary tax and no one really ever wins. Every now and again they trot out some boob they claim won a pile of cash, but really, how can this be verified? Sure, you can win a couple bucks on a scratcher, maybe even 50 grand, but that’s small potatoes given the amount they take in. I bet every dollar spent on the Powerball or whatever is simply sent directly into the state coffers and a tiny percentage of it spent to pay of some twit to pretend to have won a fortune.
An election would be even easier; you don’t have to pay a crisis actor to play newly rich, you only have to put a full time payroll player in a gaudy office pretending to be “the leader of the free world” for 4 to 8 years. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword; our pen being the entirety of the media.
I did however enjoy the level of confused malaise the millennials at work this morning displayed. All of the old guys, awake or not, were nonplussed and mostly happy the Red Wings beat the Flyers, which is still more inane distraction.
Haha! Great insight. I’m just glad they’re changing the channel for a while.
Bingo. The light bulb just went off in my head. Who in the hell would be responsible for getting voting data instantly to Wolf Blizter at CNN and how is it done logistically? Tens of thousands of polling places would have to be transferring data instantly to the networks. If the process was legit, why would the news networks be such a high priority anyway? Because it is a Truman Show. Logically, even with modern technology it should take long hours to tabulate the data. Just musing but it definitely defies logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Earlier on, due to the time lag between poll closure and vote tabulation, the networks used exit polls to forecast winners, usually accurate, but now I question why. They have started exit polling again, but I assume that has been brought under control too.
I don’t support much on this site but this article is worth a look-
It will tell the story of British Security Coordination, an American based British Intel operation that conned America into backing the British in WWII- I cite it here as a prime example of how the media can construct a reality out of whole cloth, just like yesterday’s selection returns-
Here’s a key highlight:
According to William Boyd: “BSC’s media reach was extensive: it included such eminent American columnists as Walter Winchell and Drew Pearson, and influenced coverage in newspapers such as the Herald Tribune, the New York Post and the Baltimore Sun. BSC effectively ran its own radio station, WRUL, and a press agency, the Overseas News Agency (ONA), feeding stories to the media as they required from foreign datelines to disguise their provenance. WRUL would broadcast a story from ONA and it thus became a US “source” suitable for further dissemination, even though it had arrived there via BSC agents. It would then be legitimately picked up by other radio stations and newspapers, and relayed to listeners and readers as fact. The story would spread exponentially and nobody suspected this was all emanating from three floors of the Rockefeller Centre. BSC took enormous pains to ensure its propaganda was circulated and consumed as bona fide news reporting. To this degree its operations were 100% successful: they were never rumbled.”
CIA, I have read anyway, plants stories in foreign media sources so that they can then be referenced in American media as arm’s length journalism. The whole idea is fake credibility. That sounds very much like what you describe.
It’s exactly what he’s describing. I’ve actually done it myself in advertising. There LITERALLY is no difference between advertising and the “news”.
As Miles points out in his latest paper, Trump didn’t seem all that happy during his victory speech.
And, his family looks more like they are attending a eulogy than a victory celebration. His young son standing beside him looks like he is about to go unconscious (even the MSM commented on that). Does he look like a kid who just became the son of the POTUS?
More importantly, will Trump really make it to the swearing in ceremony? Miles suggests other possibilities and I agree there is reason to be skeptical about Trump actually serving as president.
Apart from the phoniness of the “election,” something still seems very fishy here.
I was initially shocked that his young son appeared so uncoached in his mannerisms, likely a product of neglect of his narcissistic parents? He had no idea how to stand, where to place his hands, or when to applaud. His parents certainly know these skills themselves, yet he was clueless. He looked sad, afraid, and appeared to have a eye twitch. I wonder how much of his mannerisms (particularly eye twitch) were related to being sleepy, the acceptance speech was reportedly conducted in the middle of the night (shortly after 2:45am) and the way his eyes kept popping open reminded me of how I have felt while fighting to stay awake when my body is insisting upon sleep. I felt sad watching him.
We don’t know what day/time this was filmed, and I don’t believe his mannerisms are due to fatigue. It appears to me that the boy is autistic. I watched him carefully the entire video and there are signs of that (esp at 2:28-2:31). And the poor thing looks as though he wants to jump out of his skin. It was strange and cruel of them to put him right in the camera shot most of the time. The expressions of the family members during the embraces in the “receiving line” are cold. Those participants are such poor actors, except Pence, that they don’t know how to act the part of a loving, supportive family member in the fabricated setting.
I hope you take some time, as your statement there is loaded with possibilities. We saw something unnatural and contrived. What exactly it is is not easily unmasked, but I would suggest that you follow the path for “actors” and see what you can uncover.
It was odd how Trump’s wife and daughters wouldn’t even kiss his cheek. It was even worse than watching Ryan Secrest having to fake kiss the women hosting the Times Square New Years event last year. They acted like they had infectious diseases.
Good point about not knowing the true time this was filmed. I considered that the child appeared autistic as well. Also very creepy that after Trumps speech and when he went through the receiving line the song “you can’t always get what you want” was played in a haunting like way.
More on his son’s possible autism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–w6guARNhA
Interesting…that video has now been removed from youtube due to “harrassment & bullying” policy. I also wondered if he was an MK Ultra victim, but am unsure if MK Ultra is even real and/or prominent as it seems like a possible psy-op…I am suspicious of info that comes from govt leaked papers, I suspect they wanted that info leaked about MK Ultra and that it may be related to misdirection…but have no certain stance on the issue except maybe/maybe not.
Also interesting at 2:05 Melania tugs at the child’s sleeve to indicate to him where to stand but he ignores her and moves closer to Trump.
I applaud Miles for recognizing the weird vibe during the press conference. I agree 100%, there is something very, very strange happening there. But I disagree that Trump only won because Hillary was sick. What was the point of faking the Hillary “faint” then?
The more I do research, the more I am impressed with the level of thought and planning that goes into even the tiniest hoax or psyop. There is no way in hell that they switched major plans halfway through an election. This is one of the reasons they use identical twins, for insurance. We’ve avoided the Hillary twins trap, but that doesn’t mean she and Trump are not twins.
I offer a different explanation. Trump was always meant to win, and they created this weird press conference vibe on purpose. Why? To quiet celebration and dull any excitement that Trump’s presidency can change America, like many dupe voters truly believe. The goal of this entire election has been to demoralize, polarize, and beat Americans into mental submission. It’s important that Trump’s real support base is neutered as soon as possible.
As for the kid, he looks drugged the way James Holmes was in court after the Aurora shooting. It was be a subconscious cue to the “drug kids” psyop. They may be slowly introducing the child zombie to the public. First with an explanation, and sooner or later until it is socially accepted for kids to look and act like that. Slowly boiling that frog.
I think Trump and his supporters are being set up to take the fall for the next inevitable economic crisis, similar to the country bumpkins in Britain who will be blamed for voting to Brexit.
It’s very important that they humiliate Trump supporters now. I was driving today and saw a big Ford truck with a Trump/Pence sticker on it (Pence reminds me of Dunce by the way). Something about that truck had an intimidating “I don’t give a f*ck what you think” air about it. And I realized that those types of people are some of the last “strong” personalities in America. Not the brightest, but still dangerous to TPTB and are not afraid to let people know what they think.
Most of the tough guys I know on Facebook are Trump supporters. He appeals to that jock/former football player/alpha male/dominant type personality. While they’re slowly turning the liberals gay and gender neutral, the type of person I mentioned above will take longer to convert.
That’s why I think the Trump press conference was on purpose. First mellow the supporters out when they’re at their excitement peak, and then go to phase 2, whatever that is. A divorce? Getting embarrassed by Merkel at a G7 meeting? A former boyfriend coming out? Getting sick and showing weakness?
We’ve been doing a bit of emotional crisis-intervention with family and friends and it looks like it’s going to get worse in that respect if the school videos all over the net are any indication. That’s the kind of thing that really alienates people from each other, when they perceive a risk to their children. It’s not going to take much to make one of these videos go viral. This could play into a pull the rug out quick and also accelerate the splintering and forcing of people to pick sides, even when no side is appealing. It’s already looking as if we could be going through the election battle in real social terms, repeatedly, for the next 4 years.
We are like swimmers who do not know where the shoreline is, full of good energy but unable to decide on a direction. These candidates, this time Trump and Clinton, throw us life preservers with no ropes attached.
I am out if metaphors.
This scenario makes the most sense to me. “Don’t like what the race-to-the-bottom of globalization is doing to you? Well, here’s the alternative and look how bad it is for you.” As if there was only one alternative and as if the coming crash (or whatever) isn’t manufactured on purpose. It’s part of the so-called Hegelian dialectic. And while they’re at it, they’re going to blackwash as many things as they can (like conspiracy theorists) by tacking it onto Donald Trump. They want to jettison the life preserver with the ballast, and they’ll sink the whole ship to do it if they have to.
I’m not 100% convinced Miles is right on this, either. I’m up in the air. I’d like to think he’s right because it means my reading of the election–that Hillary was the chosen one all along and Trump was just a foil–was right until recently. I do agree the victory speech and reactions were odd. But it seems to me like they’re genuinely stunned and shocked — and unhappy. If the game plan had been changed in recent weeks, they would have been prepared and acted the part better. I would say that if the plan was changed, they were either not informed or were informed at the last minute.
I disagree that it is mathematically impossible to win the electoral college vote but still lose the popular vote by over 1%. It’s unlikely, but still possible. I haven’t done the math, but my intuitive number crunching is backed up by this paragraph from the wikipedia entry on the electoral college: “It was estimated in 2011…a candidate could win the Electoral College while winning only about 22% of the nationwide popular vote.” That estimate is based on a particular scenario with very well-defined parameters. I don’t know what is possible based on the voting scenario we were fed, but I am guessing it is mathematically possible.
And like Straight, I am predisposed to believe the Hillary’s illness was a psyop or in any case that the illness would not deter them from their plans for the same reason he mentions. If they could switch Trump with a double (or twin), as Miles suggests, then they could do the same for Clinton.
The more people I talk with, the more I realize that Trump’s victory is truly traumatizing for many, many people. My mom is a therapist, and she herself is devastated. She told me about a young (milennial) client who just calls her and sobs. She is so choked up she can’t even talk, just sobs. That’s one example out of many. Psychological trauma is definitely part of their playbook. They want us traumatized, dazed and confused. It makes me think it was part of the plan from the beginning.
Also, the sheer amount of well-written, well-conceived opinion pieces things that were written about Trumps victory in the first 24 hours after the announcement makes it hard for me to believe that they were all written up on the fly. Yes, I realize that journalists are trained to write quickly, etc., but this just seems too quick, too eloquent and most of all: just too much of it. A few talented people can write well-considered, eloquent essays very quickly. But so many? It’s as if they were ready for release to (mis)direct our thoughts and feelings and understanding of what went down. I suppose this could still be consistent with a recent change in plans, but it again suggests that it was part of the plan.
On the other hand, it does seem odd that the Clinton campaign canceled their celebratory fireworks the day before the election. https://goo.gl/tnniFO I guess they wanted to get their deposit back?
One final thought: the electoral college still needs to vote. Electors pledge to vote for the candidate who won their state, but in principle they can change their vote. These are so-called “faithless electors.” Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors after the fact, but the constitutionality of those laws has not been tested. And in any case the could not prevent them from changing their votes. There are historical examples of faithless electors voting for different candidates, most recently in 2004. Only in 1836 did faithless electors change the outcome of the electoral college vote, and that was just for vice president. So the actual election will only take place on 12/19. There is still lots of wiggle room for shenanigans and scandals before Trump becomes pres.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remember the movie Dave? It’s all hidden in plain sight.
No shite. I didn’t see even an acting job of real emotion.
And get the music (rolling stones) at the end. You don’t always get what you want, you get what you need. OMG lmao!
Would it be prudent to assume Pence will do the actual governing from that office as Biden did for Obama? These lifers speak the language of the beltway while the star waves and poses- I also have to assume Trump’s gesturing with his right hand the O-kay Masonic 666 hand sign thing is something, though that stuff is getting seriously tired- They might as well put a conical hat with stars and saturns on his head, drape him in a cape, give him a wand and have him tour special locations to enact the voodoo- If he actually occupies the White House museum, that is all he’ll be used for-
Yes, that symbol stuff gets old for sure. My wife’s got a big coffee-table size copy of Manley Hall’s master work whatever it was called, Secrets of All Ages or some such. It’s mind-boggling how much work has gone into all that. Maybe it evolved out from the monastery days when they didn’t have anything to do except illuminate the borders of manuscripts, i.e. middle-age doodling.
Anyway, I have a screen capture from his Reno speech where as he’s spreading his arms and open-hands into a jesus-pose he’s saying, “…can you believe this, we’re just THREE days away, from the change you’ve been waiting for your entire life.”
This was just after he came back on stage from the emergency exit where they whisked him away. Should have timed how long they kept him off stage.
I’m calling it his Symbolic Resurrection Speech. All they needed was a halo from the rafters. I’ve been watching for this kind of stuff after reading most of Ken’s work at RedesigningGod.com He kind of flips me out because I was one of the ones who went way down the Nibiru-Planet X rabbit-hole for a couple of years, I’m embarrassed to say. What a hoot how he blends all that in to his artwork.
Have had the thought that there’s some good opportunities for street theater in all of this, like a Trump-ozo the Clown character, handing out magic red, white and blue glitter, but it hit me that there’s been some recent anti-clown, possibly predictive-programming going on, if I’m remembering some news reports that have kind of blurred past. I’d need a couple of big line-backers in on that one.
My friend who’s an entrepreneurial, weight-lifting, mid-50’s Hispanic security guard thought it would be fun to get out there at traffic lights and sell T-shirts with a Map To Canada graphic and the appropriate phone number plus a brochure, just to take some of the seriousness out of things, which he’s hearing in spades in his community. He describes a generational-split among the folks he knows, where the younger-set was for Hillary and the older guys were for Trump. He’s pretty ambivalent, politics-wise and is one of those Just Get On With It kind of guys who figures we’ve survived a lot worse than this and he chastises the younger ones that are whining now, but apparently didn’t get out and vote. We concurred that neither of us really gets the math behind the electoral college votes and he was mildly interested when I mentioned what Miles is thinking about the impossibility of the whole thing.
That White House Museum image is going to keep popping-up now that it’s been visualized. Gratzi on that. It got me thinking about a board-game that has all the bells and whistles. It could bring an element of ridicule into the equation. Sometimes it seems that’s about the last refuge. Picture people grabbing their game pieces – politicians – who advance to some oracle command-station to get their future marching orders – maybe a station in the form of a well or a cave – and then the many misadventures along the way, like prop lights falling on their heads, or forgetting their lines, or rogue conspiracies, etc.
By the way, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on Monday, and he went on for quite some time about how Trump rallies were spontaneous and enthusiastic and packed, and how Hillary was not generating enthusiasm. He was careful to hedge and all of that, but he was basically saying that Trump was going to win.
In other words, he was tipped off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure most of the talking heads got the script a couple of days in advance to red through before going live.
The math behind popular vote loss/electoral college win seems easy to me, and I am not strong with math. Part of it is winner takes all in most states. Another factor that makes it possible is that each state is given two additional delegates that are not tied to population. My home state of Montana with less than a million people barely qualifies for one electoral college vote, but gets three due to having one representatitive and two senators. Same with a bunch of other states like Alaska and Wyoming. And back in the early days when slaves were counted as part human for this purpose, we had a long string of southern presidents, starting with Washington. It’s been a goofy system from the beginning.
There are no odds to give because this is all speculation but we can roll out the old rugged plausibility index and hang a few tropes on it-
Hillary is sick: What if she has a serious condition, only diagnosed recently, but it isn’t detectable in public? Maybe a serious procedure is unavoidably required which will require months of rehabilitation and vigilant monitoring for life threatening infections? What if something like daily dialysis is required? Or an ileostomy is performed and a bag is required for an extended period of time? What if it’s something already metastasized and she is terminal? This may be impossible to detect at public functions and the fake fainting spell was prepared to demonstrate illness to encourage this level of speculation- Miles bit- She would not be able to govern and the public would be livid if it came out they had elected a dead woman walking- Nor would the hoaxers be able to stage a Lincoln-like assassination after her election to cover up the illness as Miles has argued about Honest Abe, terminal but electable- So, because of the timing, they had to quickly switch to Trump knowing that we would have four year regency period until the likely oligarchically connected Elizabeth Warren could play the role of Madame President-
It was Trump all along: The politically correct fascists now square off against actual fascists- Political Correctness has served TPTB very well, destroying all distinctions and values and making everyone out to be equally mediocre- But there is an inertia building and there is a danger that a rigorous dogmatic adherence to such PC principles will set in concrete- This is bad for business (Miles’ ‘trade’ by which all of the forced change, which people fundamentally resist, breaks such resistance down through staged traumatic events resulting in shopping therapy, so to speak) Therefore, a brick through the front window is thrown to shatter these fixed values- Divide and conquer, of course, but Can Do Donald is the John Galt like ring leader of these Looking Out For Number Oners and their skinhead winged monkeys- That Village it was supposed to take will be put to the torch- The Nanny State is on life support- Add your own mangled metaphors here:______________
There are more wizards in Oz than we know and they are in a throw down for control: This would suggest we are collateral damage in our confusion and anger (not being fed when the bell rang) and that the next tug of the leash has not been scheduled- If no one is holding the leash, our conditioning won’t allow us to run, but we should- POM is an unleashed dog in flight- We’ll need our sense of smell at full power in the days and months ahead- The MSM is backtracking at warp speed to appease the Trump faction, but one guy I listened to was speculating that some celebrities will be out of a job, not because they vowed to run to Mommy in Canada, but because the death of Political Correctness will sap their audience and their whole raison d’être- Bruce Springsteen is one guy who looks caught in a bind- Lets see him balance anti-Trumpism with virile backbone in the face of a macho slave revolt*-
*No, I don’t think it will be just the emboldened white power mouth breathers that will gulp down the unfettered air of candor- Many otherwise reasonable people have been terrorized by the pussyfication of this culture- The LGBT (did I miss a letter?) guilt trippers have done almost nothing to explain to the indifferent as well as potentially bigot-labeled just what all this gender smearing is, what causes it, what is just ignorant youth acting out, who uses “victimization” for their own ends, the history, if any, of such sections of society that have existed in this gender twilight, critiquing their own motives, judging what is a natural outgrowth of repression and what is over-amplification caused by TPTB and their media- They should be cognizant of how this public spectacle and forced, seemingly one way debate, effects people who have grave doubts about the legitimacy of this element of the culture- If the stampeding hordes remain ignorant (as opposed to indoctrinated) things could turn tragic- But that may be in the plan as well-
I would like to add a few thoughts regarding the possible end of the 2 party system. Trump was already presented as anti Republican establishment. I also saw this image promoted on facebook http://i2.wp.com/i147.photobucket.com/albums/r320/smoothsailing_02/trump-lion_zpsyd7yrmjg.jpg . We can consider Bernie Sanders as the democratic counterpart. Some people believe that Bernie could win against Trump but was sabotaged according to wikileaks ( or it is wikipiss). But to achieve the end of the 2 party system I think they may use a fake assassination. If that happens they may use Mckinley parallels. They did that with Lincoln and Kennedy. This time the parallels can be of different nature. Mckinley was for raising tariffs, protectionist and assassinated by an anarchist/socialist(who was an immigrant). Thus we can already see some similarities with trump. Instead of anarchists we have (anti)social warriors.
Why would they want to end the (fake) two party system? It has served them well.
This is a good question. The (fake) 2 party system was an efficient way to control America from the beginning. I take some of the things mentioned above as a signal that the elites want to end the 2 party system. They also started the transition to the multilateral system where the US dollar will have a decreased status (still a big part of SDR or XDR) and the US military intervention also will decrease. Trump is a part of that since the propaganda says he is critical of NATO. This multilateral transition can be parallel to a transition to a multi-party system in USA. In my first comment here I mentioned that I was 70% “sure” Trump will win because he was made to align to the multilateral transition(at least it appears to me).
To expand a bit on the Mckinley comparison, I also want to say that Mckinley expended in Cuba, Hawaii and Philippines. USA became became similar to the other empires. Now USA instead of being the only superpower (unipolar world), it will become less powerful . So Trump era will be a reverse. There are also some racial parallels.
Maybe the assassination and the multi-party system will not happen, but I want people here to be aware of the multilateral transition (I assume that people here are already aware of the most important hoaxes). I don’t trust this guy very much but JC Collins at
http://philosophyofmetrics.com/free-pom/ can also be useful regarding this transition.
The movie Independence Day from 1996 predicts Hillary’s sickness and early death.
The president at the time of the movie was Bill Clinton and the film contains a few cues towards the Lewinsky scandal two years before it was exposed. You may remember the pretty secretary Bill Pullman had. Jeff Goldblum mentions how he thought she had an affair with the president.
Well in the film the First Lady (Hillary Clinton cue) survives a helicopter crash and is injured when she is saved by a group of people including Will Smith’s wife. Once that group is rescued by heroic Will Smith and returned to Area 51, the First Lady dies of internal bleeding.
Other predictive programming in this film includes 9/11, the Iraq war, the Pentagon crash, and the abortion doctor murders of the 90’s.
This Trump/Hillary election has been at least 20 years in the making. There were no last second changes IMO. Trump has been bred from birth to become President, and everything else that he is.
Note that this doesn’t mean they are going to kill of Hillary anytime soon, but the goal was to plant the idea in our heads that she MIGHT die all the way back in the 90’s.
These movies are directed at youth … this must be an attempt to marshall their attention while young, manage their perceptions so that nothing, including the wacky nonsensical election we just had, is questioned.
Here’s another one. The 2005 TV series Commander in Chief starring Geena Davis about a female VP who becomes President after the current President dies of a brain aneurysm. A little tie-in to the rumors Hillary has a brain tumor.
Hillary’s blood clot surgery was in 2009, 4 years after the show premiered.