Author: Hob Page 3 of 5

Inexplicable and Baffling

In REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA vs VERONICA DEGRAFFENREID, ACTING SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. and JAKE CORMAN, ET AL. vs PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL. Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissenting from the dismissal of the cases as moot, essentially delivers an epitaph for the Supreme Court and for The Republic.

These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

Thomas provides some cover for the Court’s dereliction of duty by prefacing his analysis with an assertion unsupported except perhaps relative to some narrow claim:

That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election.

The Duran suggests that the court not taking the cases and leaving these issues undecided will cause trouble in the future, but that argument presupposes that the goal should be to provide clear rules under which a democracy can operate. It seems more likely that confirming that the courts are closed to election challenges will cause the least trouble under the form of governance that actually exists.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ scathing dissent. Coney Barrett & Kavanaugh disappoint
Clarence Thomas Explains Why the Court Should Have Heard Election Cases
Viva Frei calls Thomas “Justice Obvious”

Dead Body, Multiple Stab Wounds, Bloody Knife … Why Investigate?

Ron Coleman is a lawyer and an election witness. Here he is interviewed by Adam Townsend. There is a lot of optimism, considering the facts of the case.

Lawyer Ron Coleman discusses Social Media, asymmetrical warfare, the mob, the law.


If you can keep it

Perhaps, formally, The Republic ended when the Supreme Court refused to hear Texas vs Pennsylvania, but that was a bit anti-climactic. Here is the work of the “ballot wizards of the Midwest” being called contemporaneously.

Patrick Henningsen on UK Column. Their YouTube channel has since been deleted.
Richard Baris, a real pollster
The Duran, Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris
Viva Frei and Robert Barnes
Peter Lavelle and George Szamuely gaggle with Philip Giraldi
Another gaggle, this time Ciara Haley joined by the American journalist Helen Buyniski

Sam Faddis, on November fifth, suggested to Take To The Streets. Let Them Know You See Them. Let Them Know They Will Not Steal This Election From The American People. He also summarises the preparation and execution quite well.

Tom Luongo’s friend’s reaction was apparently “Civil war it is then.” Luongo also mentions Larry F. Correia’s: THE 2020 ELECTION: FUCKERY IS AFOOT.

Michael Anton in “Let’s Take Stock of Where We Are” read the situation as it would be quite well and does suggest that the system will have suffered a fatal blow.

Theoretically, it’s possible that a system designed to be gamed and abused won’t be. But a party concerned about the integrity of the system wouldn’t expend so much effort making it easier to rig elections; it would do the opposite.

Far from seeing any effort to explain, all I see is an enlivened and merciless push to ram through the results while censoring and slandering anyone who asks questions or points out irregularities. Either they don’t have explanations, or they don’t care what we think. Or both.

There is something to be said—from the point of view of the powerful—for just ramming things through and explaining nothing. It’s a clear demonstration of who’s boss. It demoralizes the other side. And it’s nearly certain to change the system permanently in ways that benefit the ruling class for as long as they can keep it going.

That may well work in securing the White House this time. But if they just ram this through without explaining what really happened, then the legitimacy not just of our electoral system but of our entire government will have suffered an extreme, and possibly fatal, blow.

Sweet Young Zombies

Historical now, the incidents at The Evergreen State College have become iconic enough to inspire phrases such as “The Evergreening of America”.

Perhaps the use of a Zombie horde by a bureaucrat to gain full control of an institution also resembles other, much more important, events.

Benjamin Boyce was a student at Evergreen at the time and has documented the whole saga quite extensively.

Mike Nayna made a detour from the Grievance Studies material to do a three part summary as well.

PART ONE: Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & the Evergreen Equity Council

Death to Me!

Another Soviet comparison by David Mikics at Tablet:

Stalin’s most celebrated victims were themselves used to humiliation and self-abasement. As Robert Conquest writes in his indispensable book The Great Terror, “Their surrender was not a single and exceptional act in their careers, but the culmination of a whole series of submissions to the Party that they knew to be ‘objectively’ false.” Conquest tells of a former member of the Soviet Supreme Court who was informed by an interrogator, “Well, the Party demands that you, as a Bolshevik, confess that you are an English spy.” The man responded: “If the Party demands it, I confess.”

It is hard to imagine that the authors of the present confessions know anything to be ‘objectively’ false.

“Our harassment training makes clear that what matters is how an act makes the victims feel,” wrote the Times staffers. Even if McNeil “didn’t act maliciously or with hateful intent,” they added, that doesn’t matter, since “intent is irrelevant.”

Another difference. In the good old days intent mattered, it was the star of the show both as sincere sacrifice to the party and as the falsity to confess to. In the Zombie version without brains intent can play no role.

The Trojan Horse

James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian explain how Zombies will eat your brains:

James Lindsay, in particular, has become an authority on the academic foundation of Zombie brain consumption (New Discourses).

The Fallen

Kathrine Jebsen Moore on Knitting
Baz Edmeades on a Humanist society
JEAN VALJEAN on Wikipedia
Unilateral Unitarian Church SJW Takeover!

J Scott Turner even uses the true name: The Brainworms Come For Big Science.

The ACLU has suffered a significant loss of cortex: The ACLU must fight for liberty, not social justice, The Disintegration of the ACLU.

Lama Abu Odeh uses such words as minoritarianism and progressoriat.

The Doublethinkers

Dmitry Orlov suggests something similar to the collapse of the USSR is imminent but it seems that thought patterns are still becoming more those of the USSR itself, witnessed by Scott Aaronson and now Natan Sharansky: The Doublethinkers.

The Kolmogorov option

In the wake of the Jame Damore kerfuffle Scott Aaronson speaks about speaking out, without speaking out:

The Kolmogorov option

And then thinks better of the latter:

What I believe II (ft. Sarah Constantin and Stacey Jeffery)


Curtis Yarvin reflects on the state of things soon after the ballot wizardry.

Ultimately, I am glad Trump lost, because Trump was more than just a liar—he was a lie. As soon as he accepted the fraud that he was actually in charge of the government, he became complicit in a fraud against his own supporters. They could never understand why he didn’t “do something” about this, that, or the other thing.

He could have told them why; he could have even worked to change that. He was given the choice between looking and feeling important, and realizing and revealing that he wasn’t important. He chose as he did. Given that he did, his defeat at the hands of the ballot wizards of the Midwest may have been legal injustice—but it was divine justice.

Asserting Dominance?

Time publishes an article that seems to be someone letting us know that they know that we know, and that they don’t care that we know. Or perhaps to let others that don’t know know just what they want them to know rather than have information lead them to know what they don’t want them to know.

The Time article:

Bret Weinstein does not yet seem fully aware of the obvious.
Eric Weinstein acknowledges a limited hangout, but goes no further.

“Viva Frei”:

Page 3 of 5

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén