A Measure of Cowardice and Sociopathy: Finding Courage During Historic Times

Circa November 2020, America and the world is at a cross-roads. Under the guise of a pandemic, a slew of mail-in ballots flooding American precincts at the early-morning hours of November 4^th (many run through multiple times) has resulted in comically-obvious election fraud.

History will remember November 3-4, 2020 as a pivotal moment. If we on the right lose this battle to overturn this comically-obvious fraud or hold a new election, why would we? A new Seven Letter poll published on Politico, taken November 10-19, 2020 on the "results" of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, reveals the answer [*1].

Twelve percent of Biden voters say, "Yes, illegal voting and fraud stole this election," compared to 79% of Trump voters. A prior-released Rasmussen poll, taken November 17-18, 2020, had Democrats at 30% believing fraud likely changed the election (20% very likely) [*2]. So we can infer the Seven Letter poll may understate this number. [*2]. An Economist/YouGov poll, taken Nov. 11-12, 2020, revealed 42% of general voters did not believe Joe Biden legitimately won the U.S. presidential election [*3].



Even more, 45%, agreed with the statement: "Mail ballots are being manipulated to favor Joe Biden."

But here is the interesting dichotomy. First, even though 12% of Biden voters think the election was stolen via fraud, only 3% won't accept the result. Second, even though 79% of Trump voters believe the election was stolen by fraud, only 62% won't accept the result. That shows two things: (1) 9% of Biden voters are sociopaths who are not to be trusted and (2) 17% of Trump voters are feckless cucks to be mocked.

I've always seen anger in politics toward Democrats the same way as being mad at a bear rampaging through your house. You don't direct your anger at the bear. Bear gonna bear. You direct your anger at the feckless cuck who hid under the chair while letting the bear inside to destroy your home without doing anything.

Democrats gonna Democrat. Most are lazily informed but honest in their beliefs. Only about 9% are evil, if we trust these poll results.

We can't control the behavior of 9% of evil Biden voters outside of catching them in illegal behavior through use of our various criminal-justice institutions. But what can we do about the 17% cowardly among our ranks? We can start by asking why they cower. 

A certain satisfaction comes from playing the hero, scratching that certain itch to fill the void of purpose in a man’s life. To be the one who draws the line in the sand against unfavorable odds and emerges at the end as a hero. We love watching this on our screens, in books, and in video games. Why do we not despair when consuming such fantasy? Because we know we can turn it off any time or keep replaying the game until we win or are bored of it.

Do we take sides in conflict based on morality or on our perceived probability of the victor? And who controls that perception?

The fantasy in art we experience as vicarious heroism gives us that chemical rush of virtue as a reward without the risk. Sometimes the good guy loses. But does the good guy lose because his enemy was superior or because his will was broken? Is the desire to avoid being a loser stronger than the desire to be a hero?

Many on the political right still rely on the consensus of talking heads (with their glorious manes sprouting from hair plugs) on the television and major-circulation newspapers for their filter on perceiving truth. Their will breaks. It's not that they get their morale and information from independent foundational examination of the evidence. Instead, most rely on the heuristic of experts giving a conclusion, flooding their news feed with that conclusion. It's not that people believe X; it's that people believe Y source and infer X is true based on trust in Y. People's gut instincts may be to distrust X, but they view the consensus of Y flooded before them as a reality that X as truth will prevail historically.

For the benefit of those who've fallen prey to the spells of Y, let's review what we know.

The last time the AP was publishing voting tallies was 7 a.m. November 4, 2020 before it switched to percentages only (screenshots taken by myself):




Why didn't they continue to publish the vote tallies? What are the odds Joe Biden caught up this lead in all the swing-states Trump was ahead on the night before with last-minute ballot discoveries? The numbers later coming in violated Benford's law according to one source ("Benford’s law or the first-digit law, is used to check if a set of numbers are naturally occurring or manually fabricated. It has been applied to detect the voting frauds in Iranian 2009 election and various other applications including forensic investigations.") [*4]?



Of course, posting this article violates social media censorship guidelines:

Curious. Why is an article from an anti-Chinese Communist Party news site on mathematical probabilities "against [their] Community Standards on adult sexual exploitation?"

Since the statistical evidence of such mathematical improbability as to be impossible raises a strong red flag, what evidence do we have that fraud transpired in lieu of legitimate vote-counting?

Let's see some of the many allegations, with attached affidavits, as to computer vote-switching in Sidney Powell's filed complaint in Georgia (aka: The Kraken) [*5]. Note that the expert witness will testify that "hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump in the 2020 general election were transferred to former Vice-President Biden." Note also that "US intelligence services had developed tools to infiltrate foreign voting systems including Dominion," which was used in the states where the fraud took place and that patent records for Dominion Systems list Eric Coomer as "the first of the inventors of the Dominion voting system," while Coomer was "later promoted to Voting Systems Officer of Strategy and Security" and was removed on the Dominion website as such after he was recorded stating, "Don't Worry. Trump won't win the election, we fixed that."

The inference is that U.S. intelligence, likely the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), is illegally involved in this manipulation. Lieutenant General McInerney states in a recent interview, on November 27, 2020, that Military Intelligence recently had a firefight with the CIA in securing the servers where this manipulation took place (his explanation begins around the 43-minute mark) [*6]:

Sidney got the term Kraken, because that's name of the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion. That has been her source along with other sources Mary and I know about but don't want to talk about... The important thing is, now get this, they identified China, Iran, and Russia as being involved in this and manipulating the votes. In addition, the U.S. Special Forces Command seized a server farm in Frankfurt Germany, because they were sending that data from those five states or six states through the internet into Spain and then to Frankfurt Germany. Special operations forces seized that facility. So they have those servers. And they know all this data they provided... I heard it didn't go down without incident.... My initial report is there were U.S. soldiers killed in that operation. Now, that was a CIA Operation [that the U.S. Special forces raided]. That's the worrisome thing.

This incident was reported prior in part by the sources of Adam Housley, a freelance journalist, formerly Fox News [*7]:



There have been at least 81 efforts by the CIA to interfere with elections from 1947 to 2000 [*8]. How many since 2000? How could we trust they aren't doing it here, especially considering U.S. Attorney General Barr appointed Special Counsel Durham to investigate the intelligence agencies for their role in falsely accusing Trump of "colluding" with the Russians?



Let's move on to the eye-witness testimony in affidavits. Here is a sample of just some of the Michigan affidavits filed in court and evidencing comically-obvious levels of fraud [*9], but there are plenty more affidavits of such instances in the other swing states.

Why do voting machines need to be connected to the internet? Why did the IT tech lie and say they were not connected to the internet when they were? Why was the pathway to observe this reality physically being obstructed?



Why did fifty boxes of ballots come in after 4 a.m.? Why were election workers cheering over this announcement? Weren't they tired? Wouldn't they want to go home? Why did they cover up the windows to the counting room? Why did the last-minute ballot discovery violate chain of custody rules? And why were they running those ballots through the counting machine multiple times?







Why were they illegally backdating ballots?



Why were they marking ballot dates-of-birth as 01-01-1900?



Why were they handing out pamphlets on how to distract Republican poll watchers?



Why were armed police preventing poll watchers from entering a room with military ballots? Did the bags removed from the room contain military ballots they were trying to subtract from the Trump total?



And, of course, the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic was used as a convenient basis to block Republican poll watchers:





Now, these examples were in just Michigan, which has the most obvious examples of fraud. But note that both the Pennsylvania House [*10] and Senate [*11] rejected certification of the comically-obvious election fraud that occurred in their state. From the Pennsylvania Senate, November 27, 2020:

THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED that the Pennsylvania Senate —

  1. Recognizes substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing during the November 3, 2020 election; and

  2. Finds, based on the facts and evidence presented and our own Board of Elections data, that the Presidential election held on November 3, 2020, in Pennsylvania is irredeemably corrupted; and 

  3. Disapproves of the infringement on the General Assembly’s sole authority pursuant to the United States Constitution to regulate the selection of Electoral College delegates; and

  4. Disapproves of and rejects the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s premature certification of the results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors; and

  5. Declares that the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute; and

  6. Directs that, pursuant to our authority granted in Article II of the United States Constitution and the numerous illegal acts committed, encouraged and ignored by the Governor, Secretary of State, and certain election officials, we hereby take back and reserve to the Pennsylvania General Assembly the power to designate Presidential electors for the State of Pennsylvania for the December, 2020 meeting of the Electoral College and withdraw any prior statement or direction to the contrary given by us or any other official or body; and

  7. Directs the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor to withdraw and vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 General Election; and

  8. Commands all Presidential electors and other officials to act in conformity with this resolution and not interfere with the authority of the Pennsylvania General Assembly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 and under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution; and

  9. Urges the United States Congress to recognize and count as the State of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes for President and Vice-President only such electoral votes as are certified directly by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and the Pennsylvania Senate by subsequent resolution.

  **********

Despite this evidence and the immense legal battles ahead, many I communicate with on our side flail in despair, more concerned with being on the winning side than being on the right side. And by that I don’t mean they support their perceived winning side (i.e. the enemy); it’s more they fear speaking out publicly for a side that ultimately loses. They want to play the role of the smart boy who called the loss more than they do the valiant hero who fights and loses. That is: many are more concerned with being factually wrong about even an immoral outcome than being virtuously right in the face of loss, as if allowing a lion to murder your family was the correct action if a God’s-eye view reveals we all would have died anyway and that resistance was futile. In a war of ideas and information, does the slow burn of social pressure takes its toll more than a firefight where your life is directly at risk?

In James O'Keefe's book, American Pravda, he notes a soldier's answer to his question about the difficulty of facing bullets versus facing a bureaucrat who might fire you: "A firefight lasts for minutes. The decisions you make, you make in seconds. And you know someone's always got your back. But in government, it takes years to build up a reputation and a ton of moral courage to put it on the line. Plus, you've got lots of time to stew about that decision, too much time."

I’m not primarily communicating to those like myself that believe we will be victorious. I do believe we will be victorious, because the evidence speaks for itself. It just has to get out to the public. And the public is on our side.

I’m instead communicating to the despair merchants who peddle in self-pity, like zombies aiming to make more zombies. The enemy is not so much the other side but the zombies on our side infecting others with despair.

A judge will not rule in our favor and overturn comically-obvious election fraud if the public does not question it. Take Justice Roberts during the "Obamacare" lawsuit in 2012, Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), for example. He found a technicality to allow what to the other conservative Justices saw as an obviously unconstitutional law in place, merely because he believed the court's long-term legacy on overturning laws and the media's distaste for a court overturning such a popular law (with the media) was more important than delivering an honest opinion on what was just in the moment.

Judges have discretion to make up a variety of reasons to throw out cases, as the law has enough technicalities to weasel almost any outcome. Public opinion and political will on the other side matters. If a large enough percentage of Trump voters are willing to accept the consequences, why should a judge rock the boat? Why would a state legislature, such as we see in Pennsylvania, change the media's preordained course of events they've laid before us?

Resistance is never futile. The facts are on our side. Morality is on our side. If outcomes in life were certain, what would the purpose of living be? This is an exciting time to be alive. As the old adage goes: we see through a glass darkly. But we see enough to plot our course to victory. The question is: do we have the will to take the journey?

UPDATE: A message from President Trump and an argument between the Supreme Court Justices over whether to hear a recently-filed Texas lawsuit against the shameless states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin reiterate my point.



A law clerk for the US Supreme Court discussing the above suit on Hal Turner's radio show:

Hal, as you know I am a clerk for one of the Justices on SCOTUS. Today was like nothing we have ever seen. The justices are arguing loudly behind closed doors.

The Justices met in a closed and sealed room, as is standard.

Usually it is very calm, however today we could hear screaming all the way down the hall.

They met in person, because they didn't trust telephonic meeting as secure.

Chief Justice Roberts was screaming

"Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?"

"Don't tell me about Bush v. Gore, we weren't dealing with riots then"

"You are forgetting what your role here is Neil, and I don't want to hear from the two junior justices anymore. I will tell you how you will vote."

Justice Clarence Thomas says "This is the end of Democracy, John."

When they left the room, Roberts, the Libs and Kavanugh had big smiles. Alito and Thomas were visibly upset. ACB and Gorsuch didn't seem fazed at all.

Hal Turner Radio Show - UNLOCKED FOR PUBLIC: Loud Arguments in US Supreme Court Chambers over Texas Lawsuit - COURT INTIMIDATED

---FOOTNOTES
[*1] PowerPoint Presentation (politico.com)
[*2] Rasmussen poll: 20-30% of Democrats believe the election was stolen from Trump (bizpacreview.com)
[*3]  econTabReport.pdf (yougov.com)
[*4] Joe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law (Mathematics) – GNEWS
[*5] https://defendingtherepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/COMPLAINT-CJ-PEARSON-V.-KEMP-11.25.2020.pdf
[*6] WVW-TV Exclusive: Lt. General Michael Flynn's First Interview Since President Trump's Pardon | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network
[*7] Tweet / Twitter
[*8] The Agency: A History of the CIA | The Great Courses Plus
[*9] Trump Campaign Files Suit In Michigan, Citing Irregularities, Incompetence, and Unlawful Vote Counting | Donald J. Trump for President
[*10] https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20190&cosponId=32628&mobile_choice=suppress
[*11] Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda - PA State Senate