Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Adore the river of meat (Long, expect more voter fraud)
Unqualified Reservations ^ | 11/30/2012 | Mencius Moldbug

Posted on 12/06/2012 9:53:13 AM PST by kreitzer

Adore the river of meat Carl Schmitt said that the sovereign is he who decides the exception. While this is true, Carl Schmitt lived in saner times.

In the '30s and '40s, the sovereign had a pretty simple way of deciding the exception. He made his decision and loaded it into his gun. Propaganda existed, true, but it was remarkably crude. Really the main thing was the gun. Sensible, traditional, effective.

Nobody makes decisions anymore. At least not personal decisions. At least not in the public sector. And guns are almost obsolete. You don't need a gun to herd sheep - much less swine. All you need is a story. (And slop for the swine.)

Who is the sovereign? Not a who but a what. The sovereign is the story. Of course, there is no story without a storyteller. There are a lot of storytellers. Professionals, even. They make a good living and they're all quite replaceable.

(I actually have great sympathy for the professional. In a bureaucratic oligarchy like ours, the professional both rules and is ruled. At the top, there is no one on top of him. Yet he cannot change his mind. He would simply be replaced. There are always younger, more eager professionals. Sovereignty is conserved; it is always humans who rule; and yet, it seems that no one rules. Who gets to put his hand on the wheel? He can stand there, and look like a captain. Chicks dig it. And yes, sir, it sure does pay.)

When the sovereign is the story, I claim, the sovereign is he who selects the null hypothesis. What is a null hypothesis? Have you ever seen the phrase "no evidence that"? For instance, there is no evidence that voter fraud has a significant impact on American elections.

Like it or not, established religion is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Cuius regio, eius religio. Unless you're a crazy person, you believe what the sovereign, personal or institutional, orders you to believe. Obviously there is a conflict here, or at least a potential conflict. Because even a normal, non-crazy person will experience difficulty in disbelieving his own eyes.

Which is fine. Sovereigns, though asymptotically infallible, err. They change their mind, or at least have to be thought capable of it. You can change your mind too. Maybe you're just the first. However, the null hypothesis is what the sovereign orders you to believe, at least until evidence (which should promptly be brought to your master's attention) convinces you otherwise.

Since the sovereign also sets the bar for how much evidence it takes to convince you otherwise, he can order you to believe in pretty much anything short of outright arithmetic violations. All he has to do is set the null hypothesis to his desired outcome, then set the burden of proof impossibly high.

Is it possible to escape from the null-hypothesis trap? Reader, it is. The solution was discovered 250 years ago by a worthless country neighbor name of Thomas Bayes, who pointed out that when evaluating evidence logically, you start not with a null hypothesis but with a prior conviction, which you update on the basis of its consistency with the new evidence.

Unfortunately, the Rev. Bayes (also a Jesus freak) never did anything else of note, and society has never even come close to applying his insight. (The Internets have created a very successful cult of Bayesians or supposed Bayesians, whose methods as applied to practical problems of propaganda wrestling remind me most of the claim that tai chi is actually a martial art. In a sense, it is. I'm not sure it's really what you want in this kind of a situation, however.)

For instance, our courts - the form of official reasoning we know best - operate on a decidedly pre-Bayesian paradigm. The defendant is innocent (null hypothesis) until proven (inappropriate use of deductive terminology in inductive context) guilty.

A Bayesian court would reason as follows: the defendant is a known ghetto gangbanger (prior conviction) accused of slinging rock (evidence). His attorney asserts that this "rock," which officers somehow mislaid without entering into evidence, was actually Finish brand dishwasher detergent. However, since defendant has six priors for aggravated narcotics distribution and there is no evidence that he has ever actually done the dishes, we calculate the probability of his story as... etc.

You can see how disruptive this Bayesian stuff is. Now, of course, one might make an ethical argument that our criminal justice system shouldn't adopt this dangerous new form of logic. However, what tends to happen in the minds of the innocent is that when they see pre-Bayesian reasoning applied by the sovereign in his capacity as justiciar, they believe that this is the correct approved way to think and they should apply it everywhere.

For instance, they believe, an election should be treated as clean until proven dirty. Is this one way to think? It is one way to think. Applying the same pre-Bayesian logic, we could treat it as dirty until proven clean. Or we could forget about null hypotheses and try to come up with a reasonable prior.

Now, I gained a strange new respect for Mother Jones when they brought Sir Robert Filmer to their readers' attention, and indeed you'll often see that the oldest, most respectable communist organs can slip sound fascist perspectives into their audience's eternal blank slate. But on this one, they're really playing fast and loose.

You can't compare election fraud convictions to UFO sightings. You have to compare them to UFO interceptions. It's true that only 13 Americans have been convicted of election fraud in the last decade. Yet in the last decade, not a single UFO has been convicted of trespassing in our solar system. When I sit down and do the math, I find that American election fraud is infinitely more dangerous than an alien invasion.

In addition, I note that in the last decade, not a single American has been caught speeding at the Indy 500. It is of course the case that according to the Pew Center, not traditionally known as an outlet for Faux News, one out of every 8 US voter registrations - that would be about 34 million - is bogus. Of course, it's quite possible that Americans are so honest that 33,999,987 of these fake accounts have gone entirely unused. Would Norman Rockwell vote twice?

This is what's wonderful about the null hypothesis:

For the head of Libya's national election commission, the method by which Americans vote is startling in that it depends so much on trust and the good faith of election officials and voters alike.

But that's exactly what you do with a null hypothesis. You trust it. Until proven otherwise, of course. But of course, since there is no evidence that election officials and voters are acting in bad faith, investigating any such unproven claims is itself in bad faith. It's probably racist, in fact. (There is no evidence that "Bayesian" is just another word for "racist.")

You have a gay friend who has frequent unprotected anal sex with strangers in bathhouses. "You should get tested for AIDS," you tell him. "But there's no evidence that I have AIDS," he protests. You point out that he has frequent night sweats and looks like a skeleton. "Sure," he says. "But lots of things can cause weight loss." A perfectly true statement. This is more or less the reasoning of the Brennan Center for Justice.

There are also a lot of things that could have created 200,000 more Ohio votes for B.H. Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Plenty of things! On the other hand, given our prior conviction about the popular mood in these years, the outcome seems a bit of a surprise. Bayes' Theorem is all about surprises.

You have a geek friend who's a system administrator - but not a good one. You portscan his server. "You have Microsoft RPC services open to the public internet and your Apache install appears to have been last updated in 2006," you say. "But the site is running fine," he says. "Is it?" you ask. "Has your intrusion detection picked up any anomalies?" "What's intrusion detection?" he asks.

So, for example, if you really wanted to know what was going on in American elections, you could audit one. Randomly chosen, after the fact. We'll take every vote and match it to an actual human being. In all the other precincts, we'll do what we do now, which is to treat the number as valid however it got into the computer. But in this one, we'll check every vote.

Has this ever been done? Of course it's never been done. It would be a gigantic violation of privacy, probably racist. And why? There is no evidence of election fraud.

So, lacking evidence of this character, our tiny but valiant fringe of crazy Americans who for some reason, probably racist, prefer their own prior conviction to the sovereign's null hypothesis, will just have to take our chances believing their own eyes. Or witnesses whom said eyes find plausible. It's a humble technique, not in the least scientific. Yet many have done well to rely on it.

Here, according to one witness I find plausible, is what a 21st-century election in the state of Patrick Henry looks like:

I arrived at the polling place at approximately 5:40 a.m. I went into the polling place and showed my credentials to the Chief who showed me where to sit behind the poll workers who would be checking voters in to receive a voting certificate. All of the poll workers were either African American or Hispanic, with the only Caucasians being the Project ORCA watchers. The voters waited in a long line that went outside the building at all times during the day. At one point, probably around 11:00 a.m., I noted that the line was about 300 people long. The line did not break at any time during the day, and there was no time to take a break during the entire day from 6:00 a.m. until the final person voted at close to 8:00 p.m.

Throughout the day, I took note of many irregularities besides the abnormally long lines. The poll workers who regularly work the elections said that they had never seen turnout like what was present. I believe the lead worker said about three times as many people as usual turned out that day to vote and that it is usually a quiet, slow precinct. There were three parts to the voting process. First the voter waited in line to get to the point where I was standing and watching, which was the voter check in, where ID was checked and verified and voting certificates were given out to qualified voters. After receiving a voting card, the voters then stood in line to cast their votes at one of five voting machines. After voting, the voters stood in line to turn in their voting card. Each phase of the line was long and the lines all snaked around at all times.

I was only able to observe the check in phase. As people approached the station of four poll workers who were checking voters in, the voters presented one of the required forms of ID to the poll worker. The poll worker then stated the voter’s name, found them on the database, and then asked for the voter to state his/her name and address. Many, many people were unable to state their names and addresses without assistance. Many, many people said the name was incorrect on their ID due to them getting married or divorced. Many, many people said that the address on their IDs were incorrect due to them having moved recently. Many could not state either the address on their ID or their current address. Many, many people could not speak English and could not follow the directions of “state your name and address.” On the app from which I was checking names, the voter’s name and age appeared. Many, many times, I did not believe that the voter was the age stated on the app. Many, many times, when I went to check off the voter as having voted, the voter was already checked off as having voted. Several times, I would swear that I saw the same person voting twice or heard the same name voting twice, when the app stated that only one voter in the precinct had the stated name. Many times I saw a person who looked Hispanic answer to a name that he or she could barely pronounce that was obviously representative of some other ethnicity, such as Asian or Middle Eastern.

About half of the time that a person had a name or address conflict, that person was sent to the chief to have his/her credentials validated. Each time, that person was allowed to vote, as I saw no provisional ballots recorded throughout the day. About half of the time the person was allowed to verbally correct his/her name or address and was sent to the next phase of the line without having to go to the chief to be approved. I believe a good 10 to 15% of those who voted had questionable ID and qualifications. At one point in the day, an announcement was made that a complaint had been called in to the Board of Elections that handicapped people were not being allowed into the building to vote. The chief made this announcement and stated that it was an untrue allegation. I did not see any handicapped people going through the voting line. [...]

I believe that most people do not have three hours to wait in line to vote, and it is strange that all of these people with fishy IDs had hours to stand in line and vote. I found numerous blue Democrat ticket sheets showing people how to vote strewn around the polling place. With the lines being long and me not being able to talk to voters as a poll watcher, I had no recourse to accuse suspicious individuals of not being who their ID said they were. I did call to the Romney headquarters and report my suspicions several times, but I do not know what they could have done about the situation, as I could not pull suspicious people out of line.

Ha ha! Joke's on you, lady. They couldn't have done anything, of course. So what were you there for? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Still, look on the bright side. Your poor guy didn't get elected. You would have felt like a big winner, but putting a Republican in the White House is like electing a Protestant pope. An even bigger joke. A joke of such stupendous magnitude that perhaps it's not even funny at all.

What's neat about this system is that in a sense, it is actually more logical than the old Norman Rockwell America that Republicans want to take us back to - you know, the republican Republic, in which elections are decided by philosophical debates among stalwart pillars of the community. As though we lived in ancient Rome, or 17th-century Massachusetts, or something. Do we? Come on, Republicans - do we? Is this really the reality-based community?

No, in the reality-based community, elections are decided by Middle Eastern Hispanics. Or more exactly, whoever can bus more Middle Eastern Hispanics to the booth. Or more exactly, elections are decided by who has power. Does it really matter whether all these Vietnamese Hondurans actually exist? They are not stalwart philosophers - they are numbers in a computer. If they exist, they exist to make the number bigger. If they don't exist, their purpose and meaning is the same.

If the party with the most power wins the election, continuity is maintained and people can go about their daily lives. If the party with the least power, the party which has no way to organize legions of sock or meatpuppets, wins, what happens? Turbulence, disruption, stupidity, and probably in the end a return to normal conditions. Don't be turbulent - vote for the winner.

TOPICS: Government; Politics

1 posted on 12/06/2012 9:53:17 AM PST by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

River of Meat?

Sounds like the title of my autobiography.

2 posted on 12/06/2012 10:13:35 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh (I cling to guns and religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Photo I.D. and Social Security card with matching name, plus thumb print or the vote doesn’t count.

And purge the voter rolls nationwide every 6 years and require voters to re-register and provide a fresh thumb print and current signature, as we know signatures can sometimes evolve over time. Cross-reference it all in a nationwide database and prosecute ALL fraudsters.

Making voting easy disenfranchises a lot more people than making voting secure. Making voting secure also makes it infinitely more precious.

3 posted on 12/06/2012 11:47:08 AM PST by Two Kids' Dad (((( Leftists: Stupid or Evil. Sometimes both. ))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Can't you just imagine this was the scene with Obama and his Commie staff after stealing the election through voter fraud- while Conservatives blame Romney, argue, point fingers, blather on about who to run in four years, 'starting a new party', and try to figure out how to suck up to minorities the 'next time'?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Map from Barack Obama Voter Fraud 2012

What most refuse to acknowledge is that it was unlikely that ANYBODY could have beaten the voter fraud planned and perpetrated by the Obama machine. They seem to prefer pointing fingers, blaming Romney and blathering on about who to run in 2016 and how to suck up to the minorities.

>Polls indicated that Romney was going to win the election.

>The economy is close to Great Depression era conditions, and unemployment is almost as high as when Obama entered office.

>Economic conditions became so dire after Obama took office it prompted the rise of an entire new movement, the Tea Party.

>Presidents rarely win reelection when the economy is in the tank.

>Mitt knew it too, when he was met by several thousand in that parking garage cheering him when he arrived unannounced at that airport, and he put his hand over his heart and said, 'This is how you know you've won'.

So how did Romney lose a race that numerous reputable polls and pundits predicted would be an easy win, based on historical patterns?

Massive voter fraud.

That and no other reason

Almost every major Conservative website has put out an article charging voter fraud- Breitbart, American Thinker, Atlas Shrugs, WND, The Blaze, Front Page Magazine, Fox News, The Daily Caller, Town Hall, Human Events..

We can not wait for 2014 and 2016 to regroup and figure out new strategies. By then it will be too late. The Marxist/Muslim usurper will have completed his planned distruction of America. That's what people fail to understand.

We must act NOW.

Start with the election. If we let the Rats get away with this massive voter fraud, we're no better than a bananna republic.

We must keep digging and pounding him every day, in every way we can- phony birth certificate, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, his hidden life, records....


Col Allen West; "I don't want to see America become like Zimbabwe where people don’t trust their electoral process. If we cannot trust the integrity of the voting system then we are no longer a free republic".

Col West has opened the door.

We must fight election fraud.

It falls on ‘We the People’.

Silence is consent

These elections are NOT certified yet. The only way to get this investigated, much less recounted or overturned, is through the Secretary of State of each of the five key states: Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. EVEN IF YOU ARE IN ANOTHER STATE you can help. But it won’t do any good to dilute our effort to challenge California or Michigan or other states. Until a major group gets involved to do more, here is the plan: Contact the Secretary of State of the state in question. See contact information below...

Read the rest- Here




The website,'Barack Obama Vote Fraud 2012' is keeping a running account of cases of voter fraud and what to do about it:

(Astonishing!) > Visit the site- Here
Obama Voter Fraud on FaceBook- Here

Sign this petition- almost 117,000 and counting -cards, email- Here

Sign the ‘We The People’ petition. It has 60,000 signatures and counting- Here

Click and sign the petition for a recount Here-

WND List of voter fraud reports Here
ATLAS SHRUGS voter fraud list. Here

Republican pole watchers; busloads of Somalians brought in Here
Another poll watcher observes voter fraud Here

Hannity and Col Allan West slam voter fraud Nov 12- Here

Photo of SOMALIANS brought to Ohio voting stations by the busload, 95% of whom did not speak English, and told to vote for Obama, straight Dem ticket- Here

'Human Events', report pollwatcher eyewitness to busload of Somalians at Ohio poll, spoke no English, told to vote Obama Here


Must watch videos!

VIDEO-- Programmer Testifies About Rigging Elections With Vote Counting- Here

VIDEO- Illegal Aliens Caught Voting and Stealing Elections In Florida In Vast Numbers- Here

VIDEO- MICHAEL SAVAGE: How Obama fixed the 2012 election- Here

VIDEO- Massive voter fraud discovered in April- Here

VIDEO- Whistle blower speaks out about voter fraud- Here


Voter fraud from Tea Party: Here

The American Dream- 22 Signs That Voter Fraud Is Wildly Out Of Control And The Election Was A Sham: Here

Town Hall : Obama Likely Won The Election Through Voter Fraud: Here

American Thinker: Was The Election Stolen:? Here

WSVN-TV Almost 1K Ballots Found In Broward Elections Warehouse: Here

Pundit Press; In Florida Obama Got Over 99% In Broward County Precincts: Here

Natural 19,605 to Zero IS Statistical Proof Of Outright Vote Fraud in 2012 Presidential Election: Here

Realville, USA: The Great Election Robbery of 2012? Here

WND: Here's How Touchscreens Killed Romney Votes: Here

The American Dream: Election Fraud? Obama Won More Than 99% Of The Vote in More Than 100 Ohio Precincrs: Here

WND: The Big List Of Voter Fraud Reports: Here

Nachum's List of Voter Fraud: Here


Newt Gingrich 360: Here

Appalachian Forums: Here

Before It's News: Here

WND: Here

Political Outcast: Here

True The Vote: Here

Fox News Insider: Here

Human Events; Here

The Will County News: Here

Fox News: Here

WND: Here

Townhall: Here

Breitbart Here

Accuracy In Media The Left's national voter fraud strategy exposed: Here

Thousands of military votes uncounted or missing: Here

Human Events: Here

Front Page Magazine: Here

The Blaze Here

The Daily Caller: Here

Front Page Magazine Here

Military Voter Protection Project: Here

BreitBart Here

Townhall: Here

Fox News Here

The Blaze Here


The best Obama Exposure site on the net, The Obama File: Here

The United StatesLibrary of Congress has selected for inclusion in its historic collection of Internet materials Here

4 posted on 12/06/2012 12:16:12 PM PST by patriot08 (NATIVE TEXAN (girl type))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson