Michael Anton has a question: Why Do the Election’s Defenders Require My Agreement?
I suggest a full read of MIchael Anton’s essay in American Greatness. It contains a valuable summary of all the reasons to doubt the fairness of the 2020 election. I disagree with his point about changing demographics as a resultant of immigration being part of the unfairness, but that’s really a minor issue of disagreement compared to all the other points he makes with which I agree.
Anton gives some theories about why so many people seen to be insisting on agreement from Anton that the election was won by Biden fair and square. But he doesn’t find his explanations of the phenomenon to be completely satisfying:
At any rate, why [Andrew] Sullivan or anyone else should care what I think of the 2020 election I find difficult to understand. Surely no one can seriously (as distinguished from crocodile fears) fret that my disbelief is a threat to the regime? If my opinion carried any weight at all, then my 406-page book and dozens of articles last year would have had some impact. They manifestly did not.
Or are they concerned for my soul, that I not be plagued (as Plato put it) by a “lie in the soul”? If that’s the case, let me worry about my own soul…
Machiavelli says in chapter six of The Prince that for a founder-prophet to be secure, “things must be ordered in such a mode that when [men] no longer believe, one can make them believe by force.” Does this regime currently possess that power? Is it seeking it? Chait would no doubt like to think so; would Sullivan agree? Is forced “belief” really belief?…
Sullivan repeatedly demanded that I explain how Our Democracy™ can survive as a democracy if something like half the country doesn’t believe in it anymore. The question was rhetorical. Sullivan knows the answer: it can’t. His purpose in asking was to shift blame from those who rig everything, refuse to explain anything but instead gaslight, gaslight, gaslight, onto those who, in response, decline to believe.
Much more at the link.
I’ve experienced much the same phenomenon Anton has, only not so publicly. But quite a few people I know who don’t ordinarily discuss politics with me – or, in the case of one, much of anything with me – have interrogated me (there really is no other word for it) as to whether I believe the election was fraudulent. I have given essentially the same answer as Anton, which in its summary form goes like this: the rules were changed so that we can never know; there was reason to think in advance that the results would be suspect, and then things are reported to have actually happened that do make them suspect, and the courts have never ruled on the merits and almost certainly never will.
Here’s is my own theory as to why my own interrogators and those of Anton are asking – nay, demanding – that we agree with them on the fairness of the 2020 election: they see our answers to the question as a test of our sanity as well as our judgment. The question they’re really asking is: how far gone are you? Have you lost your mind? Do you not see what’s obvious to every thinking and decent person who hasn’t been taken over by QAnon fantasies: that Joe Biden won fair and square and everything else is a baldfaced and pernicious lie?
They’re not looking for reassurance about the fairness of the vote; they feel they know for certain that it was fair. They’re not looking for Anton’s opinion because they plan to respect it, although they obviously respect his intellect. They are asking in order to test his opinion: has this previously intelligent person (whom they used to somewhat respect despite the political differences they have with him) gone stupid as well as mad? Is he that gullible and disordered in his thinking?
They start with the premise that they are correct in their beliefs, and work backwards to see whether he will come up with the right answer. No other answer will do.
Neo:
Well, once they have completed their interrogation and rational assessment of your state of mind they can then decide what level of treatment is necessary and required for your health and safety, and of course for the safety of the public. It’s for your own good. Not exaggerating too much?
The Soviets had a mental health system for much the same purpose IIRC?
The demand that everyone submit to the fiction of last November’s election having been “free and fair” (irrefutably, according to the criteria of our very own Department of State, an untruth) is both a manifestation of the cult-like essence of most varieties of leftism and, even more alarmingly, of the desire of power-wielding “progressives” that all potential dissenters from the officially-promulgated lies should submit and willingly embrace that which is obviously false (the Orwellian 2+2 equalling whatever is dictated by the Party).
Neo, I think you’re right. But there could be more than one reason going on here, and Anton could be right too.
Yes! I just read this one yesterday and sent a link to my son the college professor (and made my husband read it, too).
I’m glad you wrote about it, Neo.
IMO it’s the basic template of a progressive interacting with a conservative.
(1) P. finds a good argument against conservatives.
(2) P. comes to conservative and says, I’ve got you now!
(3) P. says, Hold still, while I beat you up.
(4) P. expects to enjoy victory.
That’s Montage’s template every time he parachutes into this blog.
I’m uncertain if they’re even sure that they truly believe that the election was on the whole fair and square. Obviously I don’t know what’s going on their heads.
It seems like any intelligent, reasonable, rational person should be able to accept a premise that it’s at least possible that they themselves could in fact be wrong in their perspective of reality. I know I’ve been wrong about a lot of things over the course of my life. I accept that I can’t know everything. I accept that the truth, that reality may not be always exactly as I may percieve it at any given time. I understand that I’m biased and that I have an agenda, a prefered set of outcomes. So to me it’s confusing that people find it difficult to accept that someone may honestly see things differently than they do and not be “crazy” or wildly misinformed.
United States Presidential Election’s are enormous endeavours involving millions and millions of voters across 51 states as well as terriotories, thousands of countries and jurisdictions, tens of thousands of workers, voting machines, the mail ect. Given such a vast complexity with millions of potential points of failure, whether the failures are due human error or maleficence, or systemic complexity, obviously there’s going to be problems even in a “normal” year. This past year was obviously far from normal.
I don’t “know” in the absolute sense that the election was stolen. I only know that there was a strikingly large number of things that were abnormal about this election, enough that I have a large amount of doubt in the final outcome and certainly enough that I feel it was worthy of investigation. If that makes me crazy or stupid or delusional in some people’s eyes despite what I feel are reasonable concerns that I can describe and outline, I don’t know how I could ever convince them I’m not those things really.
Just think of those demanding agreement as “The Insanity Squad.”
Because deep down they KNOW things are not on the level. They seek confirmation that others feel the same or their facts are stronger than the Trump supporters.
The three pro-Biden people whom I have talked about the election results can not refute what I saw at TCF and the multiple times the same ballots where run through the machines. At that time they generally shut down the conversation. I have challenged them to read the Molly Ball Time article. One did and he said that it was a good thing that the Democrats got organized so that Trump couldn’t steal the election. It is stunning the level of delusion people have worked themselves into. He didn’t know that American troops rolled back into Syria the day Biden was inaugurated. So I labeled him a war monger and said his theme song was Bob Dylan’s “Master of War’. He had no answer. Needless to say I definitely shake up their paradigms.
I am currently involved with some election integrity research and have attended an online seminar with Matt Braynard ‘s Look Ahead America organization. He just got the cease and desist letter from Dominion lawyers which he has responded they have no case. He is also attending CPAC and I will look for what he says on CSPAN.
Anton’s article was very good and I have put it in my reference library.
The 2020 election was the biggest theft in the history of the world. The slick part of the theft was convincing people there was no theft at all.
The biggest disappointment was that the judiciary and state legislatures refused not only to act, but to even look into the theft.
The Dems knew they could pull this off. Now, what else can they get away with?
Immigrant non-citizen’s votes are illegal votes. What is so difficult to grasp about Anton’s claim?
Maybe they’re asking because they want to get your opinion on the record … for future reference.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
– Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
The supposed debate is no such thing. “The election was legitimate” is a raw assertion that the ‘establishment’ will choose who wins and you’d better shut up or you’ll be very sorry.
“They are asking in order to test his opinion: has this previously intelligent person … gone stupid as well as mad?”
Yes, yes. In yet another instance of science jargon drifting into politics, (e.g. the optics are bad) the phrase for this is litmus test.
litmus test
NOUN
chemistry
a test for acidity or alkalinity using litmus.
a decisively indicative test.
opposition to the nomination became a litmus test for political support of candidates
Then I thought that another name for a litmus test was a “political purity test,” and that led me to this at The Atlantic: (quelle surprise)
It seems that political purity tests are not so good for building big tent coalitions, but are excellent for beating the snot out of your opponents.
In the old movie, Stalag 17, one of the prisoners received a letter from his wife.
It stated, “I know you won’t believe this but I found a baby on our doorstep. I know you won’t believe this but it has my eyes and resembles me. I know you won’t believe this but…”
He asks another prisoner, “Why does she keep saying, I know you won’t believe this? I believe her.”
He looks down at the letter and his voice cracks, “I believe her.”
At Christmas, the prisoner is knitting booties and saying over and over, “I believe her.”
They want us to that point of knitting Biden boities and saying we believe them, even when we both know it is a lie.
They don’t believe it so they have to get us to believe it which really assuages their own unbelief in the situation.
I’m sorry but I won’t repeat this lie and make Biden booties.
I gently demur Neo. I do think that they are seeking validation.
It may be that they are seeking it on more than one level.
While I do suspect that having previously labeled us all as deplorable and ignorant, they are constantly seeking justification for that smear. Any straw, no matter how slender, is valid in their minds; I also believe there is more. I suspect that they desperately need for anyone who matters to acknowledge the legitimacy of the very suspect election to justify their own tenuous positions.
Of course, a conspiracy theorist might think that some are gathering evidence to use against seditious folks who deny the legitimacy of the regime. At the pace that democratic principles are being trampled, one might imagine the day when neighbor will turn on neighbor, and family member on family member. It would not be the first time. Be careful of what you say, and to whom you say it. Not that I personally subscribe to belief that our government is spiraling out of control. Oh, no.
On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if the folks interrogating you ever realize that they have made a horrible mistake and acknowledge that fact. If they do, try to be kind.
Thanks for pointing out Anton’s article.
When you add in the “Reichstag Fire” aka “Insurrection” and the effort to root out anyone who is deemed “not of the body”, the immediate future looks very bleak.
Neo-
I think you are mostly right. Because they view this as a win win.
1) If you believe that the election was possibly fraudulent. Then they are mentally able to put you in the box of people who’s opinions are at the very least suspect. In their minds nullifying any other future opinions that you may draw
2) The unrelenting gas lighting has worked. And that signifies that regardless of numerous obvious questions. You are convertible.
Every conversation I have had with the self anointed. The question has only a binary answer. To them, you are not allowed to have an opinion someplace in the middle
@Roy Lofquist:
Bingo.
‘Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.’ — Carl Schmitt.
I think deep down they are insecure. They need reassurance.
“quite a few people I know who don’t ordinarily discuss politics with me … have interrogated me…”
These people are not your friends. They are robots being programmed to commit genocide.
What we are all doing now is following the tribe. The behavior is to be expected and normal. What is the real question is why we are now leaving the Enlightenment and its reasoned thinking and reverting atavistically backward toward our Pleistocene roots.
It would be interesting to know whether there are any opposite instances of this – someone who is certain that the election was stolen attempting to put a liberal in his or her circle to the test in such a way. I would imagine that this also happens, though probably less often (depending on location and cultural or professional setting) and more subtly. Also, I would imagine that when it does happen in that context, the “steal-convinced” would be doing it not so much as to intimidate or something like that as a sort of secret handshake sort of thing. Thus, different or even opposing motivations for what would seem to be a very similar act.
“Do you not see what’s obvious to every thinking and decent person who hasn’t been taken over by QAnon fantasies …”
Because, after all, Biden* DID win WI by 15 points just like the polls said he would.
(Oh. Wait.)
The insistence on you buying into their beliefs is not restricted to the election’s integrity. It seems like the Woke require everyone to be “in cahoots”. IF we all believe the same thing, THEN it will be true.
HCQ don’t protect you from Covid. Experts agree.
However, masks … if ONLY everyone would wear their darn masks the virus would subside. Why are these awful people NOT wearing their masks??? Don’t they know if that only they would wear their masks we’d all be safe? How selfish, even criminal of them! (And so on).
@Dnaxy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fear
https://mimetictheory.com/who-is-rene-girard/
Hard.Coded.Into.Our.Firmware.
Or near enough.
As for the Enlightenment, I’ve never seen a convincing argument that we could rewind back to the Encyclopediasts, re-run the tape and not end up right back here where we are now.
On a meta level, the only question is which group gets to have the nice view from the Wicker Man this time?
By their Twitter Blue Checks Shall Ye Know Them. Just a thought.
Next turn of the wheel, my unqualified opinion would be to try something a little less Enlightened.
In the absence of Ymar, someone has to be the Resident Shaman.
I hate the word “fair”. I much prefer “legal” or “lawful” or their derived adverbs, used in the Aristotelian sense, but not by tyrants.
Way too many of us are stuck on “fair”. Ghetto blacks with high crime and unemployment rates complain of “unfairness” as part of the increasing victimology culture exploited and emphasized by the Democratic communists of our land, though much of that unfairness is of the blacks’ own doing. “Fair” is really a substitute for “equal”, which the Soviet and Chinese communists used to degrade their societies and make people equally impoverished slaves to the State. That was fair, was it not?
When an umpire calls a strike, is he being fair or unfair? Depends on which team you’re rooting for.
I compare this to the same thing as the gender crap.
First they tell you I’m this or that. Then they demand you call them this or that. If you refuse something is wrong with YOU not them.
They believe it was fair because they want to believe it was fair AND they want it to be a “fact”.
My answer is: I believe it was stolen. There’s lots of evidence, there were rules changes – did you not see the George hearing report?
https://georgiastarnews.com/2020/12/22/georgia-state-senate-report-election-results-are-untrustworthy-certification-should-be-rescinded/
http://www.senatorligon.com/THE_FINAL%20REPORT.PDF
Almost no publicity; other GA politicians disagreed.
I can’t prove it was stolen.
Can they prove it wasn’t stolen?
No. They can’t.
Who has the burden of proof?
Following the rules should give one reassurance – but the rules were often NOT followed. Like kicking out Rep observers.
They want to claim it as a “fact”, like other facts which have been proven.
It’s not that kind of fact.
They believe it was not stolen, they should “show their work”.
Prove it.
If they can’t prove it, how do they know? By believing the Deep State gov’t which has been lying about and against Trump since before he was elected?
They’re not looking for reassurance about the fairness of the vote; they feel they know for certain that it was fair.
You’re wrong here, I think – it happens so seldom!
They ARE looking for reassurance, because they want their belief to be true, their desire for wanting it to be true to coincide with it being true.
But it’s not true. They should be laughed at.
All should be asked – did you believe police office Sicknick was killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher? That didn’t happen.
Gullible people – believing lies from the Deep State.
Deep, deep inside, they’re not sure. They want to win without cheating – but it looks like there was lots of cheating.
Actually so much, tho each so small, it’s hard to track them all. See the Navarro report, in all 3 parts.
https://peternavarro.com/the-navarro-report/
They are gullible sheep, believing lies. And should be laughed at for being so gullible.
I read the essay yesterday and thought it was very good. Thank you for dwelling on it today. The insistence on requiring the other person to ‘say the words’ is not just a litmus or sanity check, in my view. I’ve also seen this conversational gambit trotted out on talk shows, interviews, and even in Congressional testimony. The objective is to put the person on the spot, and then to use it as leverage to demonstrate how far from Main Stream they are. It’s an isolation and dominance play.
It’s the same as demanding that Winston say he ‘Loves Big Brother’. “Say The Words”. And it goes back to the old Theodore Dalrymple note about using propaganda to get people to lie publicly about what they know isn’t true, the hidden goal being conformance, the eventual demoralization and destruction of identity.
Short of direct violence – and I believe there’s a better-than-even chance of this, eventually, because these pernicious assaults are not going away – the only way I’ve been able to deflect them is to start asking questions. Take away the power of the interrogator. It requires that you be much better informed than your debate opponent, and to pounce when they decline to answer, trotting out facts and demanding to know why they cannot answer. They don’t take to it very well, but it does stop the attack.
Zaphod:
Be careful what you wish on yourself. Your mileage may vary.
‘Cos if people don’t believe in NATO who knows what might happen?
“Twitter Says It Purged Dozens Of Accounts For “Undermining Faith In NATO””
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/twitter-says-it-purged-dozens-accounts-undermining-faith-nato
Aggie:
The Struggle Session game. Internalize the lie. Say her name (it’s not Ashli Babbitt) and support BLM.
@Om:
Thanks for your concern. Next chicken I sacrifice will be for you.
Whether knowingly approving of the theft or willfully blind to truth, the result is the same.
Those directly involved are guilty of treason.
Those who reject relevant fact are choosing to be willfully blind, in doing so they become an accessory after the fact to the commission of a crime, i.e. treason.
18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact
“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”
@Geoffrey Britain:
All very nice, but ‘They’ are Upper-Case-S Sovereign and ‘We’ are not. They get to make the exceptions to the rules.
I’m no Carl Schmitt, but strikes me that quoting rules which don’t bind the Sovereign isn’t going to do much to change the Sovereign’s behaviour.
(By Schmitt’s definition, the Sovereign is he who gets to make any exceptions to the Rules.)
Rules are to be applied to Us. If this is unpalatable, the solution is unlikely to found via application of some notional rules to those who will not abide by them and have the machinery of the State at their disposal to enforce whatever convenient rules of their choice upon the rest of us Deplorables.
I cannot see anyway for us to get from here (subjects) to there (sovereign) through reference to any Rules Ancient or Modern.
Tables will need to be flipped over.
And if the party says that 2+2 is not equal (=) four but politically congruent (“=”) five-then how many?
Democratic gerrymandering requires a consensus, kneeling, or Planned Population.
Zaphod:
Baked is better than deep fried, free range or factory? But yammer has never said where he get his inspiration from; entrails or astrology. You can find him on other blogs, maybe he’ll give you some pointers?
You be you, oh next Shaman in training. Hold the delusions and conspiracies at a 1/100 yammer level to start, work up to his level by degrees. Wouldn’t want to pull a prophetic miracle.
reader:
I said they are people I know. I didn’t say they were friends.
One is not a friend; just an acquaintance who is a rabid leftist. One is a relative. One is a friend, and after she asked me and heard my answer she carried on as before. It didn’t seem to cause a breach of any kind.
One, who I don’t include in this group, asked for a different reason. She was merely curious what I think and listened respectfully to what I had to say without arguing with me, which she just about always does.
Re: Rene Girard…
Zaphod:
Some of the brainy people at the Episcopal Church I attended in San Francisco were heavy into Girard. So I looked him up, but never caught the spark.
That’s OK. There’s lots of stuff I didn’t get at one point, but came later.
My problem with Girard is that he tells a good story, but so did Freud, Jung and even Marshall McLuhan. I’m not sure how far I can go with metaphors, however original and impressive.
Which isn’t to say, there’s nothing to Girard (or F, J and M). However, as a fundamental insight into the human condition, I just don’t know and I have no idea how it might even be falsifiable as Uncle Karl would wish.
Om:
Ayam Kampung is the most delicious chicken I have ever eaten. A diet of Javanese village scraps, worms, and no antibiotics seems to work wonders.
(Come to think of it and related to yesterday’s discussion of Schmalz and the Chickens of the Pale, not having pigs rooting around eating the scraps could mean that Chickens get all the good stuff to eat and consequently taste better. Pork got banished to Bali with the Islamic Conquest of Java.)
Ayam Kampung not to be confused with Ayam Kampus <— a bright young lady financing her university education and handbags habit in the time-honored manner.
‘Ayam’ is Chicken in Bahasa Melayu/Indonesia. ‘Kampung’ is Village. Tradition! ‘Kampus’ is of course Campus.
So why is ‘Chicken’ slang for prostitute in so many languages? Cantonese too.
@huxley:
I see it as walking around Invisible Leviathan with a can of spray paint and trying to make out the outlines.
None of these theories are remotely falsifiable.
Still, it’s pretty obvious that we are a species who tells ourselves and each other stories (ok, wokesters: narratives). Rivers and oceans of blood have been conjured up by stories.
So at the very least it can’t hurt to get a bit meta and start telling stories about our stories. Or can it? That’s the catch.
Anyway we’re humans. Our telos appears to be to follow strings down rabbit holes to perdition, perhaps… but follow we must. Maybe if we get lucky we can take out the Minotaur.
@huxley:
Come to think of it, telling ourselves Stories about our Stories about God hasn’t been an unqualified success.
It’s a Puzzlement. Perhaps we need a Man of the Steppes to spell it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u5iHzag120
So at the very least it can’t hurt to get a bit meta and start telling stories about our stories. Or can it? That’s the catch.
Zaphod:
To be sure. I’ve got nothing on Girard in that regard. However, I’ve believed many things in my life, some fervently. I’m careful to remember when I’m believing.
Uncle Aldous said that the way to test a belief system was to believe it and practice it. But leave enough bread crumbs to get back. John Lilly was firm on that point too, though he got into some serious trouble by losing sight of his own advice.
Things are loosening up on Covid here. There’s a black jazz guy I talk to at the cafe, who says the Zen Center here has been quietly meeting on Sundays. I had only been sitting for six months there when the Covid shut everything down. I look forward to getting back to it.
Zen is fun in an odd way, new to me. I don’t believe any of it, hardly. I don’t expect to achieve satori or kensho or anything. I just like the people and I like to sit.
I listened to a few minutes of that podcast but gave up when Sullivan refused to debate and insisted Anton had to accept that the election was fair. This is “mens rea” as far as I am concerned.
@Huxley:
Good point about remembering when one is believing!
I thought the best test was to experiment with entire populations of other people… Err.. wait.
Things are pretty damn loose here in a supposed totalitarian environment. Everyone wears masks in crowded public places just to get along to go along. Notionally public gatherings are banned. In practice this doesn’t really apply as long as it’s not political opposition. It’s been a weird revelation for me this past year having to process that I have had more practical personal freedoms under the Yellow Emperor’s Yoke than most Westerners during the Year of the Very Big Super Bad Plague.
Meditation is difficult. ‘Snakes in Head’ as the Thais say. Still watching them slither is a start.
My clearest lighting bolt of understanding was observing an ‘Esalen Tibetan’ dressed to the nines in full kit screaming parade ground abuse down a phone line at the lobby of Le Meridien Bangalore. There’s More than One Way to Do It as the Python Koan states.
Om: Snake is delicious. Tastes like chicken. Same Same But Different (Theravada Satori FTW).
Zaphod:
As they say “No accounting for taste.” Free range snake or factory? Desperate times open the menu of possibilities. I’ll pass on the “long pig.” Don’t share, TMI.
Zaphod:
In a San Francisco galaxy long ago and far away, Alice Cooper was interviewed on a local radio station. The thirteenth caller won a “Snake & Eggs” breakfast with Alice. I’ll bet it was fun.
Buddhism is also a biz. For me a wonderfully disgraceful moment was when “Tricycle Magazine” published an article by Bruce Wagner, a first lieutenant in Carlos Castandeda’s bizarre (and lethal) post-don-Juan cult, about how he [Wagner] and Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche (a big hat in Tibetan Buddhism) were sucking up to each other.
________________________________________________
[Rinpoche] touched his forehead to mine. “Your teacher and me—the same.” Then: “Perhaps we will meet again, in Tibet.”
https://tricycle.org/magazine/art-reality/
Is Neo perhaps indulging those in the grips of fantasytheir right to fantastic consensus. This is very dangerous.
Andrew Sullivan was correct to ask. He knows that there is no legitimacy left to The Left.
We live under a corporatist fascist post-Constitutional State oligarchy, with is possibly vicious Woke theology imposed by our Rulers.
America is dead. There is no legitimacy to uphold it but groupthink chants and more Big Lies.
Neo is entirely accurate to declare: My reply to “Anton, which in its summary form goes like this: the rules were changed so that we can never know; there was reason to think in advance that the results would be suspect, and then things are reported to have actually happened that do make them suspect, and the courts have never ruled on the merits and almost certainly never will.” Correct.
But Does the psychodrama that follows Neo’s theory go anywhere good?
“Here’s is my own theory as to why my own interrogators and those of Anton are asking – nay, demanding – that we agree with them on the fairness of the 2020 election: they see our answers to the question as a test of our sanity as well as our judgment.
“The question they’re really asking is: how far gone are you? Have you lost your mind? Do you not see what’s obvious to every thinking and decent person who hasn’t been taken over by QAnon fantasies: that Joe Biden won fair and square and everything else is a baldfaced and pernicious lie?….”
People so weak are not strong enough to govern themselves, clearly. They are the New Untermenschen.
DC federal government is entirely charades.
” I disagree with his point about changing demographics as a resultant of immigration being part of the unfairness,”
Wow. In the middle 80s, the Dems had lost 6 of 9 Presidential elections, 5 by landslides. They concluded they could not win with America as it was, so they decided to import a new America, which would be kept separate, scared, poor and dependent. At all levels of government and society, they systematically sabotaged the nation’s immigration laws to import a new permanent politically reliable underclass. If that’s not a perversion of the rule of law and consent of the governed, to say nothing of unfairness, I don’t know what is.
Hahahaha
Yeah, but those who’ve figured out how to cash in on it, sure have not given up.
A couple three years ago an Episcopalian priestess or spiritual counselor or whatever the hell she was, materialized before me in the hallway as an uncle lay dying in the hospital room a few steps away; and began to try and earn her keep.
I almost felt sorry for her in her late middle aged earnestness; shorter, weaker, useless to me, yet wanting to offer something or be of “help” in some way. I don’t know why she approached me. I was not emotional, just kind of grim. Maybe she thought I was my cousin.
I wanted to be nice, but I didn’t know what to say to someone I thought was so ridiculous … who was fundamentally trying to spin universally tasty cotton candy emotional comfort out of her own foundational “let’s pretend” nihilistic relativism.
Eventually she said something like, “What is important to you to know?” I could not think of anything interesting to say so I said, “the Truth”.
Well, that got us nowhere fast.
She had to figure out how to disengage without quoting Pontius Pilate, and I had to figure out why in a situation that was literally a matter of dealing with life and death, I felt as though I had said something gauche; like a guy who found himself at a country club cocktail party, but who never had learned the art of small talk and had no sail boat or golf game to refer to, and who had stammered out something about his mother’s cooking for no good reason.
You get more authenticity and value out of the funeral director.
Unused Ballots in Fulton, Co., Georgia (Atlanta), printed in China, sourced to Shanghai by shipping labels.
Somehow this egregious example of something fishy did not make into Anton’s list. Among many other things that could have been added. None adding up to “normal” or legitimate except possibly in some CCP alt universe.
@Mike+K
Coming soon to your defunct local bookstore:
“Mens Rea in the Men’s Room – a Fleet Street Harlot Abroad” — Sully (Bantam Imprint, of course)
Bill+M:
With you there. The Immigration / Magic Dirt Thing is one river not everyone can cross. Ditto with Race. Obviously I think these things are of critical importance. Regardless, at least one can discuss and debate these matters in Neo’s forum without being banned or losing one’s job. Glass half full!
@DNW:
Been there. I guess we all have given the age-range of the demographic commenting here.
There’s a reason humans have ritual and convention — spur of the moment authenticity doesn’t always fit the bill. Probably funeral directors are the only ones left who know this. Not knowing it would be bad for repeat business after all.
Bill M:
The point was not about illegal immigration, or flouting of immigration laws. It was about increase in legal immigrants as a result of laws that were passed such as the immigration act of 1965. A person doesn’t have to agree with that law or like it to acknowledge that it was a law that was passed by the legislature, and that therefore any demographic changes that came about as a result of that legislation were “fair” in the legal sense.
“They’re not looking for reassurance about the fairness of the vote; they feel they know for certain that it was fair. “
I think you’ve got the essence of it, Neo, by using the word “feel.” They’re not trying to engage you intellectually. They need you to validate their feelings of superiority/self-love/belonging etc.
It can be hard to see it in liberals, or people who think they’re liberals, but it’s glaringly obvious in NeverTrumpers and fellow travelers like Sullivan. When it comes to policy and even politics. Sullivan is closer to Trump than Biden. His opposition to Trump is fundamentally based on non-intellectual feelings and assumptions.
That produces a cognitive dissonance that people like Sullivan can’t ignore but can’t confront. Seeking external validation is one of the primary ways of trying to anesthetize that discomfort.
We’re still in the midst of a non-rational moral panic. You simply can’t predict what kind of crazy acting out it’s going to produce and you really can’t explain why it manifests one breed of insanity instead of another.
If any of my progressive friends or loved ones asks me this question (and I think sooner or later someone will), I have my answer ready;
Hell yes, I think this election was stolen! Just like you think the last one was stolen by the Russians for Trump.
And until there is an end to mail in voting, voting is limited to one day only, with valid ‘real’ picture ID required, absentee voting only in narrowly circumscribed circumstances, and all ballots are tabulated BY HAND, double and triple checked by counters from all parties, I won’t believe in the legitimacy of any election.
And neither should you.
I’m actually looking forward to it.
Well, in line with my little parable above, a part of the issue – an important part of it – is not in determining whether Anton is in touch with reality or not per se, but in gauging whether he is willing to parrot words that prove he is still willing to play the game “Our Democracy™”, as if he really believes it is run honestly. This, despite having potentially lost through fraud and the obvious long trending political subversion of the democratic and legal process.
Losing an election doesn’t cost Sullivan much, if anything. He has, how shall we say, rather fluid personal boundaries, anyway.
But the cost of playing a rigged game is much greater for those whose economic and moral, and personal liberty interests are affected by woke driven managerial-ism.
So while Anton, declares that he has in his daily business moved on, that is not enough for Sullivan; because there are potential social consequences and downstream costs that might come with Anton’s doubting, and with his emotionally distancing himself from the Emperor’s New Clothes charade. The participants want, require, everyone – everyone – to be enthusiastically participating in their lepers’ orgy. They, demand that you not only live with being cheated, but that you pretend you were not.
Those who stand emotionally aloof and skeptical, cannot be tolerated in a society of mutual ass-sniffers. Their baseline proposition is that, mere tolerance, is never enough. And thus, if you merely tolerate; you will not be tolerated. They cannot stand your contempt.
Molly, try this. Ask her to specify. “What?” she says. And you then narrow the question to states and specific instances in which affidavits were sworn, and votes exceeded registrations and so forth.
Our friend from Slovakia, Tom, linked to a site referencing the content of the Navarro report.
You can download the report in toto. https://www.dropbox.com/s/584r7xtnngauc4t/The%20Navarro%20Report%20Vol%20I%2C%20II%2C%20III%20-%20Feb.%202%2C%202021.pdf?dl=0
Note: the download arrow is in the upper right corner of the window next to the “sign up” button. I don’t know why they made the process so awkward with this “drop box” alternative.
Zaphod,
You misunderstand, perhaps due to a lack of clarity upon my part. I have zero interest in trying to change the behaviour of those who imagine themselves to be our sovereigns.
I quoted “18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact” as evidence in support of the contention that, “Those who reject relevant fact are choosing to be willfully blind, in doing so they become an accessory after the fact to the commission of a crime, i.e. treason.”
It’s not the guilt of those who actively participated in the treasonous theft of a Presidential election with whom I am concerned. For such as they, I would volunteer to serve in a firing squad after their conviction in a rigorously conducted trial.
No it is the willfully blind who dismiss confirmable facts and reason and logic with whom I am concerned. They too should be on trial and upon conviction should have their citizenship revoked.
They should be brought to trial because in their willful rejection of facts they act as accessories after the fact. Which by the way includes prosecutors, judges, Congressional representatives, media and Big Tech decision makers.
Not that this will happen. Yet because it will not, the alternative of politics by ‘other means’ will be far worse.
The election is not the only thing they require agreement on. Look how we must all pretend that the summer of riots was actually “ mostly peaceful”.
@GB:
Perfectly clear now thanks and we are in agreement.
Likely clear enough in your first comment to anyone not half distracted whilst busily saddling one of his favorite hobby horses.
@jb:
I’m sure we could all put up with a lot more if they’d just leave us be. Not gonna happen of course.
The left is using Jan 6 as a reason to cancel free speech. There is no penalty for first amendment violations and they seem to have recently discovered that it is fair game.
Any discussions of election fraud are likely to bring about “insurrection.” I’m guessing that any investigations into the Russian hoax is about to go the same direction and Durham will be fired.
It is simple [I worked in an industry regulated by the FDA, ATF (alcohol beverage taxes are ruinous] and answerable to the IRS and a bunch of contractors. If there was no way to audit our work, it was trash, and the product had to be sewered. The voting process was not auditable, the machines were vulnerable since they were connected to the Internet, so the result is garbage. No one has to prove “fraud”, or failure. No audit and it is all trash. Any clerk at a till or register knows that game. The “officials” involved have to “show their work”. If there is no “proof” {audit), then dump everything from that district/county/state. It is really simple. If no audit, the next option involves a bayonet charge. I suspect that the National Guard units would love the chance to fulfill their oath. The Corruptocrats and the Progs think that speech is violence; they ain’t seen nothing yet.
The NY Times even published a confession of fraud. So, no mercy.
When the will to power is the most valued trait, rules are only there to be manipulated to achieve the goal as a moral order is only for the deluded in their mind. Thus it is not surprising that every aspect of voting supported by Democrats such as nonuse of photo ID and mail in ballots are essential to fraudulent voting. As with much in life, we will never know if there was enough fraud to have made the outcome different.
I think they are trying to convince us to believe a lie they like.
My standard answer; “If your asking me this question then you already know the answer.”
But I’m from Chicago. There hasn’t been an honest election there in 100 years. So of course the election was stolen. It was set up to be stolen. The mechanisms may be in place to keep stealing elections. 2022 will tell.
Just another version of having to say “I love Big Brother.” Compelled speech is a feature of totalitarianism. Noted by both Orwell and Jordan Peterson, among others…
I remember when those babies were found in a trunk and it handed victory to that weasley so-called ” comedian,” Al Franken. The argument that disallowing them “disenfranchised” the voters behind them is bogus. For every questionable, fake, possibly fake, view “allowed” a legitimate voter is probably being “disenfranchised.” But that only matters if they’re a Democrat.
I see the question as checking for acquiescence.
The only time I was asked, I said we both know it was stolen.
Guy got huffy. I think he was expecting a different answer even if I were going to say the thing was stolen.
Trying to cipher out his response, it occurred to me I wasn’t just jerking his chain. I mean, I was, of course. But I think I was right…and he was checking for acquiescence with what we both knew was a lie.
Why have a conversation with Andrew Sullivan ?
Easy!
Sully pitched him an ‘An Interview with poppers’ and Michael Public Square thought he meant ‘An interview about Popper.’
Occupational Hazard.
So is wrestling with pigs.
There’s an old yarn about seeing a turtle on a fence post. How did it get there? It certainly didn’t get there on it’s own.
In the same way we’re supposed to believe that a pre-dementia cadaver who didn’t even campaign is the most prolific vote-getter in the annals of American history.
Are American slaves still saying Qanon killed Ashley B?
“Zaphod on February 25, 2021 at 8:34 pm said:”
Did somebody think about me recently here? Because usually when you mention the devil, they can hear it and they come.
Right, heyl-EL?
The New York Times and others collaborated after the Bush v Gore debacle in Florida and hand-counted the ballots using three different criteria of acceptability. Bush won in two out of three. I wish that the NYT and other competent investigators launch a similar effort to either confirm or debunk the myriad allegations of fraud in the 2020 elections. I just want to know. Personally, I think Trump is a thug and I am glad he lost, but for the benefit of future elections, I would really like to know how trustworthy the system is.
Small but I think interesting and significant side note: the way Anton snarks at the words “Our Democracy”. I’ve noticed the way they became sort of a tic on the left, fairly recently I think. It was like some central PR brain sent down a directive to use it whenever referring to the government.
Sullivan is not exactly a leftist, I know, but he’s plugged in.
“…more Big lies.”
Exactly:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/26/origin-of-coronavirus-who.aspx
(…just another “conspiracy theory…”)
Not to mention Russiagate, “Fast and Furious”, the “Iran Peace Deal” (or rather, Iran “Peace” “Deal” or whatever its Orwellian acronym is), etc.
Nonetheless, the stolen election was the “piece de resistance”. The “coup de grace”. The sumptuous “grande finale”…. leaving all those other scandals—impressive in their own right (espescially Russiagate)— mere practice runs; leaving them in the dust.
(And they KNOW that they deserve a HUGE pat on the back, alas they can’t admit it—ah, the tragedies of life; nonetheless, in the meantime, they can, and do, keep those Executive Orders coming! Whip up that Oh-So-Glorious—and Oh-So-Useful—hatred!! And keep adding to their Herculean efforts to destroy the country!!! IOW gotta make hay while the sun shines…)
The credo—the raison d’etre—of the Democratic Party, along with its media apparatchiks, is very simple: CRIME, followed by the need to cover up that crime …and the ensuing need to cover up the cover-up of that crime. “Ad infinitum, ad nauseum”.
(Well actually, crime AND destruction.)
And obviously, if one believes that the Democrats commit crimes, as part of their M.O. (and if one believes that they lie in order to cover up those crimes), then one becomes automatically—drum roll—a “conspiracy theorist”.
(Crimes so intricate, so convoluted, so entangled and so far-reaching that they are DESIGNED to appear as though they could ONLY be the warped insane imagination of some deluded, nutty—but also terribly DANGEROUS—fantasist. Some conspiracy theorist.)
Indeed, wash, rinse and repeat several million, nay billion, times a day (around the globe) and presto—a conspiracy theorist.
(Ah, but the Right are the fascists here—of course they are…)
File under: How to make Orwell work for you…
Zaphod:
Here’s your chance to pick up some divine tips on prophetic punditry from the legend in his own mind, Yammer. “Like a dog returning to it’s vomit …” Yammer returns.
Can you spell her name correctly? It’s Ashli Babbitt.
QAnon kills, Ashli Babbitt, RIP.
Democrats, the media and all things Leftist have replaced Christianity as a religion with the new religionS (plural). Global warming is a religion. If you don’t believe or speak against the truth, you are a blasphemer. Covid masking is a religion. Trump is a serial liar and Orange Man Bad is a religion. Etc., etc., etc.
Now election fraud has risen to that same level of irrational unexplainable belief and devotion that it is another religion. Those who are non-believers are attacked. They shouldn’t have to explain something that is obvious to anybody who opens their minds. If everyone says that a clear blue sky is purple, you should not be forced to explain why you think it’s blue when they should be the ones explaining. Their answer, “Because it is.” is not available to you.
I no longer talk about anything with my Left leaning friends. We talk sports and dogs and kids. That’s it. They are so closed minded that the old adage about not talking about politics and religion extends to pretty much everything. Everything is taboo. Other than sports, dogs and kids, that is.
Who did your dogs vote for?!
Please consider thinking like a woman.
One striking fact on the way to the Gulag was the insistence, or better: violence, used to extort a confession from totally innocent people.
Everybody knew the charges were false, but the requirement to have a formally valid condemnation was as pressing as incomprehensible.
Someone thinks that also this kind of absurdity was lucidly planned in order to demoralize and scare the victims and the potential doubters more deeply. But certainly there is also the very intellectual exigence to feel right… by any means.
AppleBetty, how do you mean? Was that to somebody? I don’t know if thinking like a woman more would necessarily help me at this juncture. I’ve been trying to keep my thought-ducks lined up as it is and it seems to be getting a little harder these days.
“I hate the word “fair”. I much prefer “legal” or “lawful” or their derived adverbs, used in the Aristotelian sense, but not by tyrants.”- Cicero @ 7:25
I was going to make the point that we need to find out what progressives mean by “fair”. Allowing an illegal alien to vote is “fair”. Allowing felons to vote is “fair”. Harvesting ballots and helping the person vote for the right candidate is “fair”.
What conservatives mean by fair is entirely different. The left has misused words for a long time.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”
Never argue with a leftist until you’ve established the meaning of the words.
“…they see our answers to the question as a test of our sanity as well as our judgment. The question they’re really asking is: how far gone are you?…”
That might be it to the few starry eyed True Believers, but mostly it’s the cynical gaslighting game Anton describes.
The left is, at best, authoritarian. Authoritarians [and even more so totalitarians] demand fealty in the form of humiliating assent to what all parties know is false.
It’s not a sanity test; it’s a troublemaker/loyalty test. This is a tune up for the real game of social isolation and ostracization for the non compliant. It is. for now, mere social pressure to acknowledge you will not threaten the authoritarians’ power. If that power continues to increase the pressure will increase and the isolation will eventually no longer be merely social.
All prog/leftwing societies progress in the same way though at varying rates of speed. And they all progress eventually, if they are allowed to, to the same point; the gulag.
Gird your loins, zeks.
If the election shenanigans “gave” Trump the win when it appeared that Biden was going to win it all, you can bet your life that all those liberal progressives / socialists/ demonkrats would have moved hell and hell to overturn the election.
They never would never , ever concede that the voting was fair and square or that the irregularities did not affect the outcome.
They would have taken the equivalent of Giuliani’s evidence and forced – using any and all means, including deadly violence – the state legislatures, congress and the SCOTUS to overturn the election results.
They know that, we know that, everybody knows that.
The bottom line is that all those pro-Biden folks proclaiming the elections were “fair” just hated Trump and would agree to and accept ANY method to make sure Trump was not re-elected.
This includes having Trump assassinated the day of/before election day.
Liberal progressives are sociopaths and they are liars.
They are NOT delusional.
They know damn well the election was a hoax and they are just fine with that. They just can’t admit it to others that they have no problem accepting phony election results; if “their” guy wins, that is all that matters.
So they make believe all was on the up and up.
The left ALWAYS knows what they are doing; they may obfuscate, weave and dodge, but it all comes down , for them, to the attainment of absolute power. They will do anything, say anything to achieve power.
One has to really be an idiot to think they are just being delusional or that they believe in a “real” representative govt.
They do not.
They HATE representative govt., because it allows the possibility that the people will vote for someone they, the left, abhors.
This they cannot abide.
And if you think their hatred of Trump was over the top, well guess what folks, they hate us even more and would be happy to see us removed from the living.
I am not exaggerating.
Given the chance, they would re-write the US Constitution and have it read nothing like its present form; this should tell you what they really believe and what they really hope to accomplish.
A true gulag has never been tried. Although they got close enough; horseshoes, hand grenades, H-Bombs ….
Diversity police in the USN demand your compliance sailor. Indoctrination into CRT and the new racist religion of the left.
Diversity Thursday at
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
One can’t stress the Burden of Proof strongly enough.
Transparency, auditability, lawfulness: These are absolute requirements for elections. It is vital that an election have the highest-possible credibility obtainable in an imperfect world. They exist, after all, as an alternative to civil war. If persons lose faith in that alternative, what remains?
We in the United States have been overly cavalier about this matter for decades. It’s widely-believed (and asserted rather casually!) that the fraud favoring Kennedy was greater than the margin of victory over Nixon in the 1960 Presidential Election. Why should that be a matter to be passed over so lightly? Americans have been overly-confident in the stability of their republic for far too long.
Consequently our approach to election integrity ought to be the opposite of our approach to criminal prosecutions: Every election ought to be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent. The Burden of Proof is always upon those claiming that the election was free and fair and devoid of shenanigans.
And it’s not that difficult to do! Elections are not a new technology. They’ve been subject to experiment and refinement again and again worldwide for three thousand years. The correct approach is:
(1.) Create norms which maximize credibility and transparency, along with maximum auditability in cases where things look suspicious;
(2.) Establish the norms well before the election; and,
(3.) Don’t violate those norms during and after the election.
Instead, we regularly fail to meet-or-exceed the minimum election-credibility standards that our own State Department requires for certifying Third-World elections. How nuts is that?
Our failure in this area is an ongoing national security threat…probably the greatest one.
Haha. I like that!
You could read it ten ways, depending on where you put a comma, or how you assigned/interpreted the mood. ***
Please consider thinking like a woman. (you should think in the way a woman would think.)
Please consider thinking, like a woman. (try actually thinking for once, as your better halves do as a matter of course)
Please consider, thinking like a woman. (Evaluate the manifestation umder consideration, in the conrext of the workings of the female brain)
It also kind of reads like the set up line of a classic vaudeville routine …. transfered to some situation comedy which I dimly remember [ or imagine I remember ] seeing on TV as a little kid. Probably – struggling here for plausible context – as one of those decades old mid morning local station reruns you could catch on sick days from school if your mom let you out of bed.
See, the premise is that there’s this daffy-clever wife of a dapper wisecracking older guy who’s always wielding a cigar, and …
***
https://www.thoughtco.com/mood-in-grammar-1691405
Imperative, subjunctive, optative (a minor)
DNW, also: “Please consider thinking, like, a woman.” which would be Millennial-ese for encouraging one to envision a representational mental image or maybe a reified hologram of a woman. To what end I’m not sure, but that could be worked out later, I suppose.
I wrote, “Please consider thinking like a woman,” without explaining myself. That could, as DNW and Philip said, be read ten ways. And, I’m probably off-topic.
Sorry!
I agree with what Zapod wrote above: “All very nice, but ‘They’ are Upper-Case-S Sovereign and ‘We’ are not. …” Given this, I think the subject itself is interesting, but not consequential.
What is consequential, when two people are talking? Their relationship. Who are you talking to? What is your relationship; where is it going; when and why? Why are you talking about this? How many different ways can you talk about it? Often, words aren’t the best way.
AppleBetty:
I don’t call myself a Christian much these days, but I am still humbled by the saying attributed to St. Francis:
Preach the Gospel always! When necessary, use words.
Of course, the web ruins all great quotes including this one.
http://www.aggiecatholicblog.org/2015/11/st-francis-never-said-preach-the-gospel-always-when-necessary-use-words-2/
@huxley:
And, when necessary, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
https://vimeo.com/292290173
Zaphod:
Geez, I’m not plagiarizing myself. Oh, dear.
http://www.reallysmartblog.org/2015/11/huxley-never-said-the-web-ruins-all-great-quotes/
I think an appropriate response to compelled speech regarding the recent election would be to agree with those compelling the speech and then some. Say something like, “There was no election fraud at all. The 2020 presidential election was the fairest possible election, with not even the tiniest bit of election fraud. It simply is not humanly possible to conduct a fairer election or one with more integrity than the 2020 presidential election,” with the most sarcastic tone of voice one can muster. Maybe give them a wink and an Okay hand symbol at the same time.
Infuriate them with your agreement.
I’ve come back here for a few minutes, in a kind of panic. I have just been watching some commentary by Tucker Carlson.
It is to make clear, to swear, that my “DNW on February 25, 2021 at 11:29 pm” post, which was leveraging off of my ‘the bizarre obligation to join in the game’ which I described in my earlier hospital post, https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/02/25/michael-anton-has-a-question-why-do-the-elections-defenders-require-my-agreement/#comment-2543308, was not the result of an opinion stolen from Tucker Carlson.
I don’t give a damn about originality. But I would give credit then, or now, for the alternate take which I proposed to the “reality check” perspective mooted by Neo, if I had knowingly or unconsciously gotten that take from a media source.
I used to think Carlson was a junior George Will. But that was long ago, and I now see him as one of the presently more fearless and insightful commentators in media.
Here is his take, on why all must bend a knee.
https://youtu.be/PX8p4GQcZFM?t=36
How to Reply If You Are Being
Badgered by Leftists Insisting that
You Accept the 2020 Outcome
as Fair’n’Square
https://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2021/02/how-to-reply-if-you-are-being-badgered.html
…/… Reply as follows:
• No no, I think it’s insane to believe that any kind of cheating was involved, and I think everybody should agree once and for all on who the victor is.
— Oh, good! So, you accept Joe Biden as our president?
• Joe Biden as president? No, no. I wasn’t talking about that at all.
— (?!) So, what were you talking about?
• About the Tour de France. I fully accept that Lance Armstrong is the winner of the Tour de France (not just once but seven times), and that anybody questioning his victory is a conspiracy theorist, a seditionist, and a jealous sourpuss.
…/…
(More at the No Pasarán link)
DNW @ 10:32pm,
I agree and believe Carlson is the real deal. I also happen to agree with a lot of his opinions (although I do think he sometimes exaggerates and conflates things for impact and “entertainment” value). He is one of the few, former neocons (no offense, neo) who criticizes himself for his prior, hawkish stance. Regardless of being a hawk is right, or wrong, one almost never sees media folks highlight past inconsistencies or explain them.
His voice is very much needed now.
What R.C. said regarding transparency.
Just try applying that concept to the 2020 elections.
The ONLY possible conclusion that one can make is that the Democrats (and their media adjuncts) FOUGHT TRANSPARENCY every inch of the way. And of course, they’re still fighting it…simply because the architects of a “successful” coup is always going to have to look over their shoulders.
(On the other hand, one might claim that there’s no real surprise here since the Obama administration—with the invaluable help of most of the media—was “the most transparent administration” in American history…and the odds are truly excellent that the “Biden” administration will be even more transparent!)
Related:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-rules-arizonas-maricopa-county-must-turn-over-21-million-november-election-ballots
Hmmm….
Zaphod, how much of the human population do you think we have to dustify, before humans start rethinking their prideful and arrogant ways?
I know people didn’t take me seriously in 2019 and before, when I talked about the Divine Hammer dropping on them… but surely they understand what will happen if they try to call my bluff now a days right?
The thing that should scare people is not T Red, Kama, God, or Satan.
It’s the fact that some random guy starting with Y as a name, has too much power. Beware the ides of March. And april 15th. pain is coming. winter is here