A Different Take

There's Still Time For A Steal

Nov 12, 2024

So, Trump has defeated the forces of darkness, let's all join hands and dance around the campfire. I was wrong - the Democrats didn't steal the election. Or, to nitpick, they didn't try to steal it, because if they'd tried, they'd have succeeded. Yes? There are several main possibilities, one of which explains what we've just witnessed. Having been burned, I probably won't attempt another prediction but, instead, will lay out the options and the evidence for each.

One possibility hasn't been mentioned by anybody, as far as I can see but, given that the reporting thusfar has been uniformly dishonest and an exercise in narrative building – even (particularly) from conservative media – perhaps this isn't surprising. We are witnessing a false construct that is being built around us in real time. It's designed so as to make us believe that we won because our time has come, and it's very well done, for the most part due to its overwhelming nature; it's not so good on the detail. In fact, the clumsiness of some of the machinations is downright insulting to the intelligence.

I have also yet to find a single writer prepared to confront an obvious conundrum – when has the Left ever simply thrown up its hands when it's lost? When has it ever accepted an election defeat without a veritable smörgåsbord of complaints? When has it ever engaged in navel-gazing and self-flagellation? The answer would be never. So, why would they do so now?

The possibilities. Option 1; the election was free and fair this time, with no suggestion of any shenanigans and Trump defeated the Deep State. Option 2; there was an attempt to steal this election too, but it was 'too big to rig.' Option 3; Trump was allowed to win because he and his allies are bought-and-paid-for. Option 4; Trump was allowed to win because the Democrats were desperate to rid themselves of Harris. Option 5; contrary to appearances, the fat lady has not yet cleared her throat and there will be an attempt at a December surprise, designed to bring the stars back into alignment. And we can dispense with Option 1 in short order – there is no such thing as a free and fair election in America. To a greater or lesser degree, someone always has their thumb on the scale, as will become apparent. The only recent occasion when things went awry was in 2016, when 'they' were caught with their drawers around their ankles.

Option 2 is similarly fanciful, as no election is now too big to rig. Well, one was – 2020 – but they went ahead and rigged it anyway. This time around, we are supposed to believe that they used the same play-book, yet couldn't pull it off. I'll deal with that hopium shortly. Option 3 seems to be a possibility, or not something we should rule out, as it's impossible to know either way from the outside, looking in. But there is an answer that settles that question pretty decisively. Option 4 is superficially attractive and there are definite indications that the Democrats sabotaged their own candidate but, in the final analysis, the treachery is far more likely to have been in service of another end which, when addressed, will bring us seamlessly to Option 5. Incidentally, from here on in there will a lot of talk of they/them – I'll define they/them now as the ruling elites, both Democrats and establishment Republicans, acting in concert.

The only data we have which purports to show a roughly 50-50 split comes from blatantly rigged elections and polling companies who, come election season, have to rely on the rigging and the incipient demonization of one of the candidates to scramble their way up to grossly incompetent. Without the help, they'd be out of business. It's a little like weather forecasting; if the people manipulating the weather are on speed-dial, weathermen have a halfway decent chance of not humiliating themselves on a regular basis. Polling and the practice of 'calling' an election are both partisan activities and I wonder whether the latter is more usefully categorized as a form of smoke signal to the polling station operatives, telling them that the current configuration is the result that is desired. I'll come back to that because there was a definite sense of behind-the-scenes manoeuvring on election night and some uncharacteristic activity by Leftist channels.

I accept that, back in the day, it's possible that Democrats and Republicans were equally matched, but the Democrats aren't democrats any more and the people have gradually woken up to that fact. Both Biden, the progressives' useful idiot and Harris, possibly a vacuous true believer, are the beneficiaries of historically low approval ratings and 80% of the population believed that the country was already heading around the S-bend on the way to the septic tank. That being the case, the possibility that blue and red are neck and neck is preposterous and, though the Lightbringer hastened the awakening, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that election corruption was endemic before his installation in 2008. Now, however, it is out of control.

And it's too quiet. I get the feeling that the Right can't quite believe that they've been allowed to win. Perhaps I'm guilty of projection but my impression is that it doesn't feel right to them and they can't quite bring themselves to celebrate properly. I certainly had no sense of elation when it became apparent that the Cackler-in-Chief was toast. Perhaps that's because I was checking the numbers, rather than trying to compose some grand theory about how the people had cast out their Leftist overlords and now Orange Man Bad, Elon and the motley crew were about to clean house. I was seeing 50-50 numbers where they should have been 65-35 – minimum.

If 80% of the population think you're a shower – and are prepared to say so to a complete stranger – how is that 35% have second feelings once they have a ballot in front of them? That question has never been answered because it's never been asked and it's never been asked because the answer is as welcome as a dose of the clap. That's why exit polls never seem to ask how people vote, just what they feel about the ways things are going. Things would likely unravel swiftly were accurate exit polling to conflict too obviously with election numbers – especially in the cities.

But Harris' numbers, particularly in the swing states, are comparable to Biden, not Clinton and the books had to be cooked into oblivion to get Slow Joe over the line. After four years of immiseration, how could Harris possibly achieve those kind of numbers? Arizona is still counting, but in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada – the battleground states that have broken for Trump, but which were stolen by the Democrats in 2020 – her total votes are (respectively) 97.3%, 103%, 97.1%, 100% and 97% that of Biden's. For context; Hillary totalled 8,870,161 across those five states and Harris currently has 10,985,363, only slightly behind Biden's 11,070,254.

The trick has always been to inflate the voter rolls in the biggest counties in a state, as that gets them the biggest bang for their buck. There is always a complete mismatch between the most populous counties and everywhere else. Republicans win the overwhelming majority of every state's counties (with the exception of a couple of eastern states), but the Democrats win the biggest. For example, there are 254 counties in Texas; the blue party won 12 of them, 6 of them being in the top ten for voting population.(1)

We are told that this is because metropolitan areas are overwhelmingly liberal, bursting at the seams with college professors and welfare recipients, which doesn't really explain why, of the thirty-five Texas counties with a population of at least 100,000, twenty eight of them voted Republican – by an average of 39%. Some of the numbers were extreme, with Montgomery County (population 629,989) going to Trump by a margin of 46% and Midland County (population 169,393) by 61%. Of course, if the cities and their suburbs were also populated by middle-class Americans, the type who reliably vote Republican, these numbers aren't even slightly surprising.

These are not aberrations; nor are they confined to Republican states. Even in reliably blue California and New York, Trump won most of the counties by large margins and many with over 100,000 in population – fourteen in California and thirteen in New York. But it's in the so-called swing states that the dissonance is most profound. In Michigan, once we get beyond the ballot fraud in most of the largest counties, we find that all eleven of the counties with between 100,000 and 200,000 in population voted Republican and by an average of 16.4%.

In Pennsylvania, Trump won 58 of the 67 counties. The smallest one captured by Harris – Centre County – has 158, 665 residents. Every smaller county voted Republican, by an average of 42.8%. It's a similar story in Georgia, with Harris only winning 27 of 159 counties. Once we've sifted through the largest, the vast majority won by Harris at an average of +32.2%, we find that 118 of the 128 that remain all went for Trump by 42.8%. In Florida, a Republican-run state which has mitigated voter fraud to a degree – enough that it is no longer regarded as a swing state - Trump won by 13.1% and Harris only won 6 of the 61 counties (which included three of the five biggest), while the rest went for Trump at an average of +39.4%. You get the picture.

None of the explanations that the Left offers work, it's simply that we have been effectively programmed. You may remember this quotation:

“If we were told that Republicans lost cities like Chicago, Cleveland, and New York by margins of four to one, or even five to one, we began to believe that such wipeouts might indeed be possible. It probably never was. We so love and trust our system, we just accept the idea that nine out of ten city dwellers might indeed all be Democrats...”(2)

Granted, they have to keep cheating. If they didn't, we'd all see just how little support they really have. And they had the numbers. They had the fraudulent voters that they used last time and they've just spent four years importing millions more, illegal immigrants who are automatically added to voter rolls the minute they tap the Feds for benefits or a driving licence. Despite this, the Republicans will no doubt play the game and obfuscate, boasting about how their legal work and legions of poll watchers kept the Democrats honest.

Which, of course, is why Harris has achieved a vote total in the swing states that is 99.2% of Biden's four years ago. The illusion is wafer-thin, easily punctured by someone with access to a calculator and a spare five minutes. Anybody spouting this guff is not to be trusted and there are plenty doing so already. It seems that every time a momentous event transpires, more charlatans and Fifth Columnists are revealed. It's just that this time, the Democrats didn't have to be quite so obvious about it, as they could feed the ballots in prior to election day, rather than having to play catch-up:

“Trump encouraged early voting, because in 2020 Democrats managed to prevent many Trump supporters from voting on election day. The downside to early voting by Trump supporters is it gives Democrats an idea how many votes they have to steal in order to “win.” It is a no-win situation for Trump supporters. If you wait until election day, voting machine failure, closed precincts, and other excuses can be used to keep you from voting. But if you vote early, you signal to the Democrats how many votes they have to steal.”(3)

They will never run out of votes because they can alter ballots, destroy ballots, create fakes and generally run amuck, as mail-in ballots and early voting give them more leeway than they will ever need and, if all else fails, there's always the algorithm they used last time (for the curious, the mechanics of stealing an election are dealt with in Anatomy of the Big Steal). Effective audits and canvasses, which would catch them red-handed, are never contemplated by the house-trained Republicans, none of whom has had anything to say about this election, either.

And yet, the Democrats allowed themselves to be beaten in all six of the states they purloined in 2020, by an average of 2.5% per race. So, they could have 'won' them, but they didn't? They didn't just come unstuck with one state – it was all of them. I don't for a second believe that this was unintentional. They were okay with not cheating Trump out of another election. Why? Especially when they'd put in all the hard yards, padding the voter rolls, importing illegals, cosying up to millions of overseas voters who didn't exist. Especially as they'd set us up, cautioning that there would be long counts again. There are long counts still ongoing, in House races and, until today, in a Senate race, but Trump's victory was called the day after the election. So, what happened? What was all the effort for?

I'm going to have to speculate about parts of the answer, but some of their motivation is clear. This time around, as was the case in 2020 and 2022, they are in the business of stealing Senate seats. By my reckoning, they have made off with four in the past week, to go with at least three each (one of which they've had to steal twice) from the previous two cycles. In the mid-terms, anything goes as there is no presidential race to act as a control. They can freestyle and create whatever vibe they want. Last time, it was the red trickle and a Georgia senate seat, plus another in Arizona and Fetterman in Pennsylvania (and, possibly, a New Hampshire seat too). In 2020, it was Arizona again, along with Michigan and Georgia. There are, therefore, between nine and eleven illegitimate Democrat senators.

All are from states that we are told are battleground states, so the races can go either way. In 2020, Biden 'won' all the states that were going to be targeted. This time, for reasons that I'll guess at shortly, they have decided to pull off a scheme that the entirety of the commentariat is studiously ignoring; they have allowed Trump to win the presidential vote, but they've then claimed victory in the Senate races – in all four states; Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona. As Trump won Michigan by 49.3% to 48.3%, they think that winning the Senate race 48.6%-48.3% is plausible. But sometimes, they're just not very good at hiding the fraud.

Figure 1

Wisconsin was even tighter, with Trump winning 49.7%-48.9%, so they're okay with nicking this one, too, even though it means that their Senate candidate polled five thousand more votes than Harris, a circumstance that is as rare as rocking horse excrement. They've run into a spot of local difficulty in Nevada though, where they had to take an axe to the Republican presidential total by lopping off around 10% (69,000 votes), whilst their own candidate is only down a little over 1,300 on Harris' tally. This was achieved by deleting nearly 28,000 Republican votes from the biggest county, thus delivering a 'victory' to the Democrat. The GOP knows, but doesn't care.(4)

But Arizona, as ever, wears the dunce's hat – the Democrats really don't like the Republican candidate, so they've thrown caution to the wind. Trump won by 5.6%, the small matter of 185,000 votes. They haven't yet finished counting either the presidential race or the senatorial one, but Harris is currently on 1,476,164. Gallego, soon to be feeding at the inside-the-Beltway trough, has 1,563,994, meaning that over 87,000 Democrats rocked up to vote for him, but not for Harris. This dynamic is a clumsy first, a cluster that has RINO fingerprints all over it. Nonetheless, as the Republican establishment is allergic to bolshie Republican women (the red candidate, Kari Lake, is all that and more), they aren't going to lift a finger, no matter how blatant the steal. So, while the forecast is that they won't finish the count until three weeks after the election, the result is already a foregone conclusion.(5)

The Senate will be Republican-controlled, but only by 53-47. There will be no 60-plus seat super-majority which would allow Trump to pursue a legislative agenda. There would have been, by 63-37 or better, had they been on their mettle these past four years, but they don't want to have the power to enact Trump's policies and the Democrats are equally determined to hamstring him. So, one part of the answer is to do with damage-control.

It also seems to me that they gave themselves options on election night and some of those options are still in play. They'd spent months telling us that we should not believe the evidence of our lying eyes, that even though Florida can complete a count of nearly 11 million votes on election night, other states – with far smaller populations – couldn't. The New York Times gave us the good news:

“For the second straight presidential election, it is becoming increasingly likely that there will be no clear and immediate winner on election night and that early returns could give a false impression of who will ultimately prevail.”(6)

They were also keen to tell us that “something was amiss with the polling”(7) and Trump was not going to do as well as was anticipated. However, in general, the polling companies over-sampled Democrats, just to give the impression that the race was tight. It gave the Left wiggle room come the night in question and the conservative press played right along with them:

“...for theft to succeed, the election needed to be close, and that polls rigged by polling more Democrats than Republicans showed a close election. In other words, the rigged polls are setting the stage for a theft.”(8)

Nonetheless, there were signs that not every part of the Democrat machine was working in unison. Several weeks out, I started noticing that CNN was actually doing some halfway-honest reporting for a change, which jarred when compared to the other cheerleaders in the legacy media. They continuously dumped on Tim Walz from a great height,(9)(10)(11) their resident pollster kept upsetting the apple-cart (12)(13)(14) and even their panellists and anchors were free to unload on Harris.(15)(16) It was a consistent campaign, designed to undermine her at every turn. Bill Clinton did his bit, too, repeatedly sawing her off at the knees whilst 'campaigning' for her.(17)(18) We were either witnessing a bout of internecine warfare played out in public or a sophisticated operation that kept both outcomes, a win or a loss, within the bounds of credibility.

So, Option 4 – getting rid of Harris – seems like it might be a motivation but, on closer inspection, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They don't need someone who is appealing to voters if they're going to cheat. Biden wasn't a strong candidate and he was already demonstrably senile prior to his installation. And Harris is the variety of empty vessel that they favour. Plus, they didn't have to anoint her, yet they did and they knew who she was by then, as she'd been VP for three-and-a-half years. They could have had an open convention, but they didn't. They used her, but perhaps she's not done yet.

My interpretation of what happened on election night is a little left field, but sustainable on the facts. At some point, somebody, somewhere made a decision. Whether that was prior to the election or on the night itself, I know not, but it could well have been a late call. They could have won, but they chose not to. The decision desks of the networks, instead of dragging their heels and calling elections in bizarre fashion (as per Fox News with Arizona in 2020, a call that cost them viewers by the truckload) were falling over themselves in haste this time around.

While conservative media got a small jump on the big beasts, it was only by three or four hours. All of CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and NBC (collectively stage 4 TDS sufferers) called the presidential race within a minute of each other at around 5.30 am, the day after.(19) The results that the election officials in the swing states were publishing made this unavoidable. Those officials could have delayed providing that information – as they uniformly did in 2020 – but they had clearly been instructed not to. So, Trump was declared President-elect.

However, other races were still ongoing, in both the Senate and the House. The Republicans already had 51 seats in the Senate, but the House was a different matter. As I write this, a week later, sixteen of those races remain uncalled and the Republicans are still four seats shy of a majority. I have monitored the glacial counting in California and elsewhere and my impression is that a game is being played. I'm guessing that there might well be some horse-trading ongoing in the background between the Democrats and/or Republican House leadership or the Trump campaign, those being two distinct entities.

I say this because the goings-on are unsubtle. IA-01, in Indiana, has been stuck at 206,680 (for the Republican) to 205,884 on 99% voting for at least four days. CA-13, which the Republican is leading by around 3,000 votes, has advanced from 58.2% of votes counted to 61.6% over the same period. CA-23, in which the Republicans were leading by 3,200 ballots on 72.6% votes counted, is now going to go to the Democrats who suddenly have a lead of 7,000 on 83.3% counted. Possible, but anomalous – a familiar story in California and one that is a repeat of the mid-terms. Slow vote counting is almost always a marker for fraud and, while the odds appear to be in the Republicans' favour, the door is being kept ajar.

Control of the House means control of the purse strings, control of the committees, control of an impeachment process, an element of control of the confirmation (or otherwise) of President Trump and, if the Democrats were to steal it, would potentially be a game changer. My guess – and it is only a guess – is that the Democrats are holding some opposition feet to the fire, extracting promises, before a narrow majority will be allowed. If it's allowed at all. Control of the House is a prize they may not be willing to relinquish.

And so the Party Of Chaos and their RINO collaborators have taken aim at Congress, not at Trump. They have ameliorated their losses in the Senate, transforming a 57-43 deficit to a more manageable 53-47. They are still in the hunt in the House and, even if they allow themselves to lose, it won't be by more than two or three seats. But why go to all the effort? The Republicans may well still have a trifecta and their nemesis will still be back in the White House. Remember how dangerous that is? Trump was going to destroy democracy if he won, according to the Democrats and the mockingbird media and the only thing standing in the way of a fascist dictatorship was Comrade Harris. And

“...saving democracy doesn’t mean upholding the rules no matter what and letting the voters decide the election and the fate of the next president. No, it means blocking Trump by any means necessary, regardless of the consequences for the rule of law, democratic politics, or faith in our system of government.”(20)

But then, they let him win anyway. Again, why would that be? Are we witnessing Option 3 play out, whereby Trump has been gelded and surrounded by assets that will further neuter him? Possibly. Most are not what they seem. Musk is not in sole charge of paddling his own canoe. When Twitter/X seemed to be about to go belly-up a little over a year ago, he was rescued by an über-sponsor in the form of Larry Ellison, of Oracle fame.

Oracle receives billions in funding from the US government. Tesla and Space X are also in receipt of huge paycheques from the federal government and, lest we forget, Tesla would not exist were it not for the climate change scam and Space X is responsible for the tens of thousands of satellites that beam 5G at the globe, without which the proposed Great Reset surveillance systems ('vaccine passports', CBDCs etc) would not be possible. He thinks that a carbon tax “properly applied [naturally] would change the tragedy...that is the steadily rising CO2 ppm level.”(21) He also likes to cosplay with authoritarians who threaten Twitter/X, only to roll over when we are no longer paying close attention.(22)

Vance is a protegee of Peter Thiel, the billionaire Paypal founder and alleged FBI informant, according to Business Insider.(23) Thiel owns Palantir, another corporation with huge government contracts, helping the intelligence community surveil the American people. RFK Jnr, for all the kudos he deserves for MAHA, also has a long history as a climate change nutter and reached out to the Harris campaign first, before he came on board with Trump.(24) Vivek had WEF contacts and, even without that millstone, I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. Gabbard seems like the pick of the bunch but she too is an ex-Democrat.

Trump's appointments will tell us much and it is telling that most of the above-mentioned individuals are currently bending Trump's ear on that score, trying to get their picks announced before the president-to-be realises he's being played again. Maybe. This assumes that Trump himself is on the up-and-up and that the staffing errors of his first term were genuine mistakes. He doesn't have much of an excuse this time around, but I suspect that some of the bloom is going to shed from the Trumpian rose. Now is the time to go big, but I have a feeling we will be underwhelmed.

Is it possible that Trump had a come-to-Jesus moment when he was clipped at Butler, or that the Intelligence Community has made him an offer that he can't refuse? I guess it is. Is it possible that the last eight years-worth of establishment warfare and lawfare against him has just been a production, served up to distract us? Could the hundreds of millions in fines and the remaining lawfare all go away now? Possibly, maybe even probably. I could conceive of a universe in which it was all a sham– until Butler. That bullet was almost certainly already in the air when Trump turned his head and, if he hadn't, it would have killed him. I don't see how that can possibly be faked which, in turn, indicates that they really were out to get him.

And the people around him? Is RKF Jnr prepared to torch his entire working life to be party to a charade? Likewise, is Gabbard likely to sacrifice her political future? I'm not sure how much trust can be placed in Vance, Vivek or Elon, but my gut tells me 'not much'. They could easily be the opportunists they seem to be, or the playthings of other interests. But Kennedy and Gabbard? Unless they've both been got at, or they're playing a role to protect Trump, I don't think so. I could be wrong.

So why else might the Deep State let Lucifer have them over? Could it be because they feared the reaction to another steal? Tactically, perhaps there's an element of that. Generally speaking, they only like protests that they can control. January 6^th was one such, with at least two hundred Feds in the crowd. Granted, they could have lanced the boil with another pre-emptive strike, but perhaps they feared that another in-your-face fraud might provoke a reaction that they might not be able to contain. Perhaps. Although it's not like them to take those sort of precautions, because it's a tacit acknowledgement that there are limits to their power.

Plus, the downside to inaction is immense. Four more years in the trenches battling Trump. Trump negotiating an end to the Ukraine war that leaves all the untapped natural resources in the Donbass in Russian hands. A realignment in the Middle East that benefits Israel and the Saudis and the other Sunni states and punishes Iran. A temporary cessation – or outright destruction - of Net Zero and, by association, a holing below-the-waterline of the good ship SS Great Reset, plus a host of other ramifications that don't bear thinking about. I don't buy it.

Why on earth would they allow Trump to take a wrecking ball to all their projects? They didn't have to chose this path, yet they did. The electorate didn't, although all of media is busy gaslighting them into thinking they did, but they only matter inasmuch as their involvement in elections provides a bulk of ballots that can be manipulated at will. Again, I come back to the central conundrum; they let him win for a reason.

There is a meagre upside to the loss, but the gruel is far too thin to be satisfying on its own. As Trump has won, there will be no lawsuits, no talk of audits, no scrabbling around covering their ass from accusations by an electorate that is far more switched on than it was. They can bang on about respecting the result, which they would only do if it benefitted them in some way, which would ensure that when they steal the next election, the invertebrates across the aisle will have an excuse to do nothing about it. And what if the next vote was to come around a lot sooner than anticipated? This is Option 5; the December Surprise.

Russiagate was the first attempt to take Trump out. Then there were impeachments, one of which was after he'd left office. The intention was to ensure that he could never run for president again. Then they tried to cobble together a Fourteenth Amendment 'insurrection' scheme to accomplish the same ends, but the courts weren't having it. Then there was the lawfare, the civil to embarrass and bankrupt him, the criminal to imprison him and give them the pretext they needed to refuse his confirmation. Both parties would have colluded in that. They funded their hobby horses in the primaries and Democrat voters tried to rig them. But none of it worked. If anything, it was all counter-productive.

So, someone took a shot at him; just three days before the RNC and prior to him naming a running mate. The establishment GOP would have picked Haley or DeSantis instead and the Deep State would have been home and hosed. Then another shooter stalked Trump at his golf course in mid-September, just after the presidential ballots were printed, which would have sown chaos had he been taken out. As we know, both attempts failed. So, they either needed a new plan or they needed to get a little better at executing the old plan. I'll lay out what's possible and you can decide whether it's likely.

If they kill Trump now, his Electoral College electors would almost certainly vote for Vance instead. They would have that right. The College meets on December 17^th and it is only then that the former president will be President-elect. Electors can vote for anyone technically, but tend not to and there are no rumblings about so called faithless electors, at present, so there's no suggestion that it'll all go sideways for him. Jumping ahead, if they kill him after Congress confirms him on January 6^th, but before his inauguration on January 20^th, Vance is again elevated thanks to the Presidential Succession Act.

But, if they get him between December 17^th and January 6^th, when the Electoral College votes have already been cast, Congress will be obliged to hold a Contingent Election (as the only Constitutional option available) and, guess what? The Representatives are only permitted to vote for one of the other presidential candidates. The Republicans would have no option but to vote for Harris as president.

That's the sort of ruse that would appeal to the establishment. It would appeal to a fair few Republicans too, as it would provide them with a cast-iron excuse for treachery. Then, given that ballot fraud has kept both Houses of Congress almost evenly-split, it wouldn't take much for small groups in each House to profess a need to be 'bi-partisan' and help the government pass its legislative programme. I'm not saying that this is what the game is – but I am saying that it's possible. And it's perverse enough to whet the sociopaths' palate.

I haven't seen this conjecture elsewhere and I don't expect to, even amongst our own kind, but while it's not my intention to impugn every conservative writer, it is clear that there are third-rail topics which those who fund media will not allow their charges anywhere near. That includes the conservative controlled opposition, who all have bills to pay. If this weren't so, others would already have posited the theory. It's not that they're thick – but they are muzzled.

This hypothesis would explain much. It would make sense of why the mainstream is not bleating about election integrity, why they are unusually magnanimous about their loss, why they are making such a big deal about accepting election results. How will the Republicans be able to do otherwise after a Contingent Election? It might explain why their BLM and Antifa foot-soldiers haven't laid waste to downtowns across the nation. It would explain why its' all gone very quiet, like a phoney war.

What are the alternative explanations for what has transpired over the past week? 'Too big to rig' is a fallacy. 'Republican poll-watchers foiling a steal' is also BS, given the number of ballots that Harris got in the swing states. Any election integrity case they won was never going to amount to a hill of beans when the fraud can be perpetrated in back rooms prior to election day. So, they definitely let him win. Either he's been tamed and what comes next will be a complete shit-show of broken promises, or they have something else planned. I cannot conceive of an outcome whereby the chastened establishment throws up its hands and surrenders to the will of the people. They didn't let him win for that reason, I'm sure of that.

No-one is talking about refusing confirmation on January 6^th, which is surely only a Hail Mary if it all still gets away from them in the meantime. But we have been treated to stories about Iranian hit-teams and surface-to-air missiles that have been smuggled over the southern border.(25) One team has allegedly been eliminated, but that still leaves two more out there.(26) The Iranians deny all knowledge, but they would, wouldn't they?(27) It's a free hit for the Deep State, as they will be the ones investigating themselves. And it would be a nifty false flag, would it not? Trump Force One coming down in flames, their tormentor forever banished? If, of course, that's what he still is.

Citations

(1) https://apps.npr.org/2024-election-results/texas.html?section=P

(2)https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/11/nospot_dice_and_modern_elections.html

(3) https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/10/paul-craig-roberts/how-america-was-destroyed/

(4) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/breaking-documents-reveal-nevada-officials-deleted-26902-ballots/

(5) https://mishtalk.com/politics/dear-arizona-how-long-does-it-take-to-count-votes/

(6) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/us/politics/election-night-results-timing.html?searchResultPosition=1

(7) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/06/16/the-guy-who-organizes-ballot-counting-says-election-results-will-not-match-polling/

(8) https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/11/paul-craig-roberts/are-the-presstitutes-final-days-at-hand/

(9) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/cnn-drops-bomb-tim-walz-releases-blistering-segment/

(10) https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/22/cnn-fact-checker-daniel-dale-walz-rumps-jobs/

(11) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/gender-gap-cnn-points-trump-has-huge-advantage/