Conspiracy Theory: The Election Isn't Real
113 2016-11-08 by [deleted]
...or at least, not as the public sees it.
I wonder if the next conspiracy to become fact is that elections are rigged, and the reason for the campaign is to program people that the results are legitimate.
Sort of like how parents pretend that Santa Claus exists for the sake of tradition and culture, they pretend that democracy is real. They need the illusion to justify their existence in power.
It might not be different than how we use movies to shape our public perception of events, and to form our culture. Elections might be like cinema, where the elite know people partake in voting more as an act of consumption than engagement. The only difference is, individuals think it's real. Maybe elections are the biggest theater of all.
Check the emails: The one thing that is noticeably absent, to me, is any concern about the election's outcome. I don't even see conversation of worry over Clinton's loss in NH, or the election in general. I don't see convos like, "how far down are we?" or, "How are we looking in this state?" Tell me... do you see any concern whatsoever from Clinton's team that she might actually lose? The only thing we've learned about the camp's attitude towards Sanders is that they expected he'd lose. I don't think this is because of arrogance: it's because they knew the game was fixed.
What I do see is a carefully crafted campaign designed to influence public perception of the candidate. What if they see voting blocs not as a actual votes, but votes of legitimacy in an otherwise rigged election? In addition, they need to appeal to voters so that at the end of the election, we can't all be wondering how a candidate that everyone hates got her way into the WH. Thus, she is a candidate who spouts everything that the public says that they would like to hear. When people vote, it's proof that people believe in her and the government... which makes for very convincing evidence towards saying, "see? It's legitimate." The public, then, is like the elephant tied to the plastic lawn chair and kept still because they're trained not to move.
We also see a campaign thoroughly engrossed with controlling the media narrative, and using media CEOs to do it. If you don't realize that our major broadcasting companies have been nothing more than political propaganda then you haven't been paying attention. At this point, I believe they push this not only to promote a candidate's win, but to create the illusion that people actually have a choice.
When election fraud is discussed, it's purely in a partisan framework: "The Republicans are guilty" or, "The Democrats are guilty!" This is actually useful to those who are rigging the election because it entrenches people firmly into either political camp rather than have them pull back the curtain to see the real illusion: there's an elite group hand-picking people from both sides of the aisle using election fraud to do it.
So then why do both parties hold long expensive campaigns? For those who know about it, Democrats and Republicans both play this game because they know it's mutually assured destruction if either side exposes that it's all a sham. It's sort of like how the CIA holds blackmail against people rather than turn it over to the FBI for prosecution: the crime itself is more valuable than its exposure.
In some cases I don't think all politicians are aware of the sham. The rigged ones might be reserved at the highest echelons, like for the presidency. And in other cases, the "tapped" politician for office may not be told that they're going to win, because it's better they act the part naturally than otherwise.
Our govts and corporations already do so many things that I can't imagine how they could permit a clean election in this country:
--The forex markets are rigged by an inner clique of banking circles
--The stock market crises are manufactured, including the Great Depression. Let's also remember the recent revelations that Obama stocked his cabinet with CitiBank-chosen appointees at the same time as the financial bailouts of said institutions were occurring.
--They already manufacture discontent overseas to install leaders of their choice for the purpose of installing pro-US business presidents, and they create artificial protests and uprisings to do it (see CIA's work in Egypt, Tunisia, and other sites of the "Arab Spring."). Just as we've seen in this election, they use social media to do it, and Soros-funded "pro-Democracy" groups to change the hearts and mind. There is a very real history of taking over countries and trying to pass it off like it's the will of the people... when it's all just slight-of-hand theater.
--We know Clinton had a direct role in rigging the elections in Haiti after Clinton at the State Dept convened a meeting with investors discussing who to elect. We know she wanted to do so in Palestine, when she stated that letting the place have elections was a mistake and should they do it again, they would've intervened "to determine who was going to win."
And perhaps most importantly, let's look at what's known about election rigging here in the US. We already know it's possible to rig elections.
*A computer programmer testified that he had been offered payment to re-configure the machines for a Bush win back in... 2000?
Here's a documentary called *[Fraction Magic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fob-AGgZn44) outlining how a very basic computer script can re-configure votes using a fractional system to align with the pre-determined percentage of victory or defeat.
*And of course, let's not forget that George Soros--a man who in all likelihood doesn't give two shits if an R or D is in office--is on the board of voting machine companies that encompass most of the ones used in the US.
*Why the focus on the voter database? 1) Easier to purge/remove votes if you can predict with certainty how they'll vote.
*The Sanders/Clinton primaries reflect egregious election fraud. It's a statistically-proven fact. So, why do people discount this and somehow think the generals would be different? With this knowledge alone, how can anyone believe the fix isn't already in for Clinton? And the exact same thing is true given what we know about the Bush election with the hanging chads nonsense and those Diebold machines.
Lastly.
Assange said something very interesting in his John Pilger interview:
"They won't let Trump win."
Let this sink in. This is a man who has a bird's eye view of geopolitics, the US election, and documents revealing how the world's most powerful operatives act.
Also conspicuously absent in his interviews is any plea to the people to go and vote. Not for Trump, not for third party. He doesn't give some glib line about how our ballots are a tool to enact change and reform.
He knows voting is a sham, and encouraging us to do it is encouraging us to give legitimacy to a sham operation.
If he knows elections are a farce in the US (as I believe he does), then why doesn't Assange expose this with direct evidence? Two reasons 1) It'd create a terrifying power vacuum 2) It'd incite civil war where third party actors could intervene... which means the populace might not be better off. I think this is why he cleverly shows us the farcical nature in other way. He illustrates the propaganda machine that is the DNC, exposes backroom deals between corporations/militaries/politicians, etc. He also points out that Clinton is little more than a conduit for bankers and foreign governments. The motive is staring us right in the face. So is the precedent. And the means.
In any case, vote anyway. There is a chance that we are all gullible idiots offering legitimacy to an oligarch appointed by a shadow cabal of billionaires, yes. But my conspiracy still remains a theory (albeit I like to believe the evidence outlined is damning). If I'm wrong then our vote really is the best tool to express discontent against our government, and that means it's a powerful tool indeed.
25 comments
28 SigmundFloyd76 2016-11-08
Dude. Get your popcorn.
Today is the day where more Americans will vote for Trump, but HRC will still win. This has been in the works for 8 years now.
"They" will not let Trump win.
-a wise man who we're no longer naming
11 [deleted] 2016-11-08
Fuckin truth.
Right up there with, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Edit to add: I'm just glad Donald has the ego, private funds, and litigious nature to contend the results. He's going to get some serious death threats at that point, and with no means of enforcement through the establishment, he might just have to back off. But hopefully not before a lot more fireworks and revelations about our seriously corrupt country.
5 tendieizdanite 2016-11-08
If Donald wins, expect plane trouble or something.
Or some crazed wacko with a knife. Or something.
Shit, that screwball Glenn Beck even tried to juice up one of his wacky followers with his whole, "stab, stab, stab!!!" thing.
6 the_friendly_dildo 2016-11-08
Trump was planned as controlled opposition anyway.
Heres an outline of inorder events as I see them likely happening
Clintons and Trumps are friends. Trump even says Hillary would make a great president during the 2008 election. He even tows the line with the birth certificate madness that Hillary Camp cooked up during the primaries. This is where the planning began though.
The writing was on the wall that their corrupt efforts to control the Democratic primaries had failed that cycle and so they had to come up with a new plan.
First, since the birther movement has gained a lot of popularity with conservatives, HillCamp see an opportunity for easy inroads with that group if they have the likes of Trump, an already outspoken anti-PC personality, continue this narrative.
Meanwhile, Wasserman-Shlultz moves into become the head of the DNC and intentionally does fuck-all to get Dems elected. This was probably just to spite Obama for fucking over her 2008 run. 'If you're going to get the presidency, you're going to get fuck-all accomplished'.
Eventually the Clintons and Trump have a claimed "falling out" during the 2012 election cycle. Its teased that Trump might run for the 2012 election as a Republican but never enters the race.
2015 comes around, Bill Clinton makes a call to Trump, probably to finalize the details of the plan for the election. Its announced that Bill Clinton even urged Trump to run during this call. A few weeks later, Trump is in the race.
We get some cryptic email from Budowsky in the Podesta Leaks, early in the race about how its risky to try and win the election by propping up an unfavorable Republican candidate. We know this means Trump but what was the rest of this conversation?
During the election season, Trump seemed to repeatedly sabotage himself by offering gaff after gaff that could easily be turned around on him. Then I think he reached a breaking point when Melania gave that plagiarized speech. He starts claiming its Hillary's fault. Why the fuck would it be Hillary's fault if her campaign wasn't running these gaffs to his campaign. I think this probably soured the Trump-Clinton relationship a bit and from there he started being a bit more aggressive, albeit with some strange reserve still in place.
Trump is a plant. He was always a plant and he knows he can't win and he's even claimed numerous times that its rigged. But he can't tell you why because of the disastrous implications.
5 SativaGanesh 2016-11-08
Exactly. Trump has proven unlikeable enough to make a clinton presidency plausible in the public's eye. He constantly brings up her email scandal but cites none of the damning evidence, it's all a ploy to make him look like a legitimate candidate when clinton was chosen for the presidency ages ago. It doesn't hurt that all the media coverage has painted trump as a pariah and clinton as a veteran politician who is the voice of the people.
1 Short4u 2016-11-08
Well, here we go
16 DntSaNoJstSaUDntKno 2016-11-08
Yes, the elections are rigged. I believe the main purpose of the whole charade is manufacturing the illusion of choice. Thus pacifying people into thinking they have a voice and the power to change things.
This election more than any other I have witnessed has also been used to deepen the divisions in this country. They have used two greatly disliked, even hated and feared candidates, to fragment the people along lines of race, sex, religion and social or economic status. This race hasn't been about issues or policies, it's been about base reactions to sensationalized media and tabloid journalism.
It seems to me that no matter who we vote for, the country just continues with the same policies. Little things may change, the rhetoric they use to convince you may change, but the major things stay the same. Pro-corporate, pro-war, pro big government, pro-wall street.
The middle class will continue to shrink. Manufacturing will keep moving overseas. The cost of everything will increase. Ultimately, we get further and further from freedom.
3 [deleted] 2016-11-08
At least on the bright side, I haven't seen this be as effective as in years past.
And honestly, posting to /r/the_donald has given me hope in the people as it relates to this point. I was a Sanders supporter, but the community there was great. It's not on /r/[redacted] but that place pays people to be nasty so they don't count.
After witnessing Obama carry out Bush's worst policies, I think we as a country are realizing very quickly that these divides are artificial. Our actual differences are quite small and manageable.
I'm excited for what happens when everybody realizes this and comes together. I'm not sure what that means or how that will look, but it can only be good.
1 DntSaNoJstSaUDntKno 2016-11-08
I don't know where you live, but where I am at the racial tensions have been ramped up. My black friends think trump is the worst thing since segregation.
I hope you are right though. We need to come together and our differences only seem insurmountable when magnified by the TV. While our wants and needs are the same.
When we realize that we are all in this together, then we win. TPTB know this. That is why they work so hard and spend so much money manufacturing this false reality.
2 [deleted] 2016-11-08
At this point, I'm strongly thinking the media fabricates our differences as much as they fabricated the story that Clinton was a good candidate. One of the biggest realizations for me this election cycle is that the mainstream media is a series of one illusion after the next.
Be excellent to one another. Don't let any entity tell you how to feel and think.
We got this.
6 MassStockholmSyndrom 2016-11-08
I'm sure the elections are rigged. I did see that email, a Podesta or DNC one where they were talking about having to shift some primaries forward?
5 [deleted] 2016-11-08
Yeah, the R primary of Illinois. It's a bizarre email exchange and I'm still not sure what it means.
https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/50087
1 MassStockholmSyndrom 2016-11-08
I don't know, this is not the one I read, the one I read definitely mentioned Florida.
6 libbylibertarian 2016-11-08
Not only do I believe this election is a sham, but I believe, and this may be painful for some of you to hear, that Trump has played the public like a fiddle. We know he has far more popular support than HRC, but we all know HRC will win. What many of you think will happen next is that Trump will then claim the results are rigged. He won't. If anything he may make a vague reference to looking into things, but he won't risk unleashing hundreds of thousands of angry and armed supporters to go roaming across the countryside. Nope. He'll just focus on promoting his news network as a way for his audience to fight the corrupt establishment in DC. It will be billed as a long war, but a war we can and must win.
8 [deleted] 2016-11-08
Plot twist: his entire campaign was an advertisement for his news network.
5 Denmark1976 2016-11-08
Clinton became the winner of the US 2016 election, when she took the 100's million from the military industrial complex and the big financial institutions, in the spring. The rest was just noise. People just get excited by the spin and locomotion, that is all...
5 bartikus 2016-11-08
The one thing I don't get then is why do patterns like what that Kansas mathematician exposed a while back, that statistically prove vote switching, exist? If the whole thing was rigged, surely they would have thought to make the data match the rigging so there is no evidence.
For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, it has to do with normal distribution. If two candidates A and B are polling at 60-40 respectively, then shortly after the polls open the vote ratios should stabilize at or close to the polling numbers. What that woman in Kansas found and was silenced for is that at what seems like the flip of a switch, the vote ratios suddenly start converging, and in some cases cross and put the "chosen" candidate on top. If this comment gains traction I'll try to find sources, I think I have her whole report saved somewhere...
2 [deleted] 2016-11-08
Hm, I found it here...she's mentioning fraud favoring Republicans in the general election. I couldn't find much on the methodology or conjectures about how they are manipulating the votes so I regrettably can't theorize much about it.
5 bartikus 2016-11-08
This is just an article about it, but I had actually read and saved her research paper PDF somewhere and now I'm trying to find it with no luck. But yeah I remember the data showing this phenomenon was only happening during primaries, and only for Republicans. Basically it was a collection of graphs where she had plotted the vote data with the y-axis being the percentage and the x-axis as time from the open to close of the polls. Normal distribution dictates that after the initial hour or so, the percentages should settle out to be relatively straight, parallel lines with little fluctuation. But then suddenly, the lines sharply begin to converge, meet, and diverge, or simply diverge depending on if the chosen candidate is losing and needs to win, or needs to win by a larger margin, respectively.
This might also be present in the recently posted thread, which I have not read yet, which claims to show evidence of 15% of Bernie's votes in California being flipped to Clinton.
5 BreakTheBubble 2016-11-08
Why not a sticky post here to collect all the articles that talk about voting problems?
I posted this in an r/politics sticky post, Why isn't there a sticky post collecting all the articles about, long lines, suspected voting machine flipping, being unable to vote because you have been unregistered, voter intimidation and other problems being experienced by voters.
2 SafetyDaily101 2016-11-08
This. I didn't evne realize this until now. Plus has one person from her campaign even come out and said "I never wrote those e-mails"?
1 rattlemytattlesOK 2016-11-08
Good post! Interesting idea
1 fat_osvaldo 2016-11-08
Isn't this how things are in basically every "Peoples' Republic" around the world? It already exists.
1 spdrv89 2016-11-08
Its all a show.
1 peterxgriffin 2016-11-08
...but he won
1 [deleted] 2016-11-08
And as a result, my optimism that (general election) votes actually mean something has been restored.
I love this election not because I like Trump, but because the choice of the people was respected--which it sure as hell wasn't in the DNC primary.
The election process still has systemic problems that should be addressed but it's not as bad as I thought. And that means a lot to me. I love being wrong sometimes.
-1 LunaticOnDaGrass 2016-11-08
As I've been telling everyone, it's not stealing the election if you show up & actually vote for her.