I just put in what amounted to an eleven hour day studying the Presidential "election", and I think I have a pretty complete understanding of how it went down. But first, I need to provide an analogy: I'm sure it's an already well understood game theory phenomenon-- at its heart, it's essentially "trust", with some extras-- but I'm not versed enough in that field to name it, without simply describing it.


Confidence Probabilities

Imagine a deaf person. Let's call her Susan. Susan has never seen a dog before, in a yard, with people walking past. You sign to her, "How confident are you that the dog won't bark when this approaching pedestrian strolls past?" Susan would probably sign back, "I'm not sure; not enough data."

Three pedestrians walk by. The dog barks at all three of them. Susan is unable to verify this herself since she is deaf, but it is communicated to Susan that the dog barked at all three. Now a fourth pedestrian approaches, and the original question is communicated to Susan. Her response this time is, "I have high confidence that the dog will bark." This is a conclusion she logically draws based on her newfound data points.

A fifth pedestrian approaches. This time, it is communicated to Susan that the dog also barked on this occasion-- however, Susan had managed to lean to one side, and saw that the dog's mouth never opened!

A few axioms and logical conclusions can be drawn from this story. Starting with the most obvious, information is only as reliable as trust in the messenger: if the recipient has any reason to distrust the messenger, then all information communicated may be factually incorrect.

Another obvious conclusion is that people's willingness to bet on a positive assertion is directly related to the data they've previously collected on prior, similar occasions; the degree to which Susan was willing to bet that the dog would bark on future occasions was directly correlated to her knowledge of how often the dog barked on past occasions, multiplied by her trust in the messenger-- high trust in the messenger would reinforce her conclusion, while low trust would cause a negative bias.

But now, here are two not-as-obvious-- but even more important-- axioms: just because the dog barked previously does not necessarily mean it will bark in the future. Similarly, just because the messenger lied in the past, does not necessarily mean they will always lie in the future.


The Election

I spent three-and-a-half hours today painstakingly studying the so-named "Transition Integrity Project". I will make a separate post about that, and upload the document to my own web server, in a couple or few days once I am back in Murderapolis.

The good news is that I don't think this election was top-down planned or organized, crime syndicate style: I do think Creepy Joe had some small inkling or intuition that things would be afoot-- hence his pre-election Freudian slip about having formed the "greatest voting fraud organization in the history of politics"-- but it's obvious from reading the report that the "TIP" participants had no more clue what was going to happen than I did: some of their predictions are hilariously off in fact, although I hope that's not due to me simply not being patient enough...

The bad news is that this election was lost due to the same psychology which made an entire town start burning witches, and young girls become totally convinced that they were in fact possessed by demons: the same psychology which has made entire civilizations start sticking Binky the Clown noses to their faces and wrapping garlic around their necks, to ward off something less annoying to contract than the common cold.

It's called "collective delusion". It's the same phenomenon that drives seances, where whole rooms claim to simultaneous hear ghostly voices from beyond. When people are in this mode, they sometimes violently dismiss every piece of factual information which counters their subjective perception, and even accuse the fact bearer of suffering from delusion himself!

Over the past four years, Leftists were literally howling at the moon when Donald Trump got elected. They started calling him a "Fascist", a "racist", a "xenophobe", a "dummy"; they accused him of having colluded with Russia, when they in fact had colluded with Russians to produce the "Steele Dossier", and while Joe Biden was making tens of millions of dollars via "pay to play" political schemes with Russians and even Chinese.

When you study Donald Trump's history and actual policy positions, it's obvious that he is quite literally none of the adjectives thrown at him, nor is he "extreme" in any way. Meanwhile, the "Steele Dossier" was factually fake, while the Bidens were caught red-handed, thanks to Hunter's laptop and literally eyewitness testimony, factually making money selling access to Joe, while he was Vice President, and after knowing that he might soon be President.

Creepy Joe has a long track record of groping women, groping little girls, playing with their hair, whispering in their ears-- one time he even sexually assaulted a staffer by shoving his finger up her vagina. Meanwhile, Cameltoe Harris was sleeping around to garner political favor, tossing people in jail for petty crimes, suppressing evidence which proved a suspect's innocence, running interference for a falsified confession, openly encouraging violent rioting, and all manner of other things.

But none of this mattered during election day, and the couple of days after: tens and tens of millions of Americans, suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome", legally and rightfully voted against the bizarre bogey strawman they'd constructed in their minds.

But they didn't just vote: some of these "TDS" sufferers were mail carriers, and managers of mail carriers-- and they were more than happy to "do their part" in whatever ways they could, harvesting "return to sender" ballots, while back-dating whole stacks of ballots which came days late from who-knows-where.

Some of the "TDS" sufferers were state governors, or in the state courts: they "did their part" by last-minute changing the state election rules, in obviously unconstitutional ways.

Other "TDS" sufferers were the people counting the ballots: at strange times in the middle of election night, Creepy Joe would make odd "jumps" in the number of votes. These were blamed on "data ingestion problems"-- but the election was called for Creepy Joe, by the media, before these "ingestion" claims and "fixes" could be audited.

Some of the "TDS" sufferers were straight-up ballot harvesters, a pair of which were caught red-handed by "Project Veritas" potentially swinging entire counties in favor of Creepy Joe, via undercover videos. To my knowledge, no investigations were made into these literal confessions, nor were the relevant congressional races suspended. One of these instances involved the representative from my own district: she was awarded the election even though it obviously was fraudulent-- not to mention it was also revealed that her campaign was bankrolled by a foreign Palestinian activist-- and to my knowledge not one question was even asked about it by the authorities.

Finally, many "TDS" sufferers worked in the media, which has been shamelessly lying non-stop for the past four years, and which is no different than the DPRK-run television in North Korea at this point. Before any of the dozens of court cases could be resolved, and indeed before votes in many states had even been conclusively settled, all of the tiny handful of major media mega-conglomerates-- which own virtually every newspaper and television network in the country-- simultaneously anointed Creepy Joe as the new President.


Tying It All Together

In conclusion, this election was a true, authentic "grassroots victory" for Creepy Joe and Cameltoe Harris, in that tens upon tens of millions of people, operating under years of programming from the media that Trump was somehow the second coming of Hitler, engaged in full-on action: much of it legal, much of it illegal-- whatever it took to get "their guy" over the top.

Several of the potential issues I discussed here wound up-- thankfully!-- having perfectly rational explanations: for example, Michigan officials covered the windows because a horde of people were banging on them, trying to illegally record the results, while Sharpies were handed out because they in fact work better with the tabulation machines. Others, however, such as the strange statistical anomalies and red-handed ballot harvesting catches could have had a very material impact on the election, depending on how widespread they were. In the latter case, one man acting almost entirely by himself discovered two major instances of ballot fraud; we'll never know how many of them there were nationally, because "TDS"-corrupted authority figures would not investigate.

How does all of this relate to the "Confidence Probabilities" discussion above then? To find out, let's plug some numbers into our analogy.

Susan has been told that the dog barked nine of ten times a pedestrian walked past. However, she was able to see that in three of those nine cases, the dog in fact didn't open its mouth. To the best of her knowledge, the dog actually barked six-of-ten times.

However, the messenger was also provably unreliable: did the dog actually bark those other times? When asked "will the dog bark at the eleventh pedestrian", she has a maximum probability of 60%, of being correct with a "yes" response, with a minimum probability of a zero. So, between 0% and 60%. But now you factor in the messenger, who she caught lying 30% of the time. That keeps her minimum at 0%, but lowers her maximum to 40%.

Her final response to the "eleventh pedestrian" question will almost certainly be "no". She can't prove that the dog won't bark-- it may very well!-- and she also can't prove that the messenger will lie again-- he may very well tell the truth!-- but there is enough evidence to reduce her confidence to a "no" trust answer; she'd been to Vegas, 40% odds aren't great.

And that's where I stand with not just this election, but the American election system in general: when factoring in messenging, it has something between a 0% and 40% chance of producing a result I could confidently say is legitimate. Needless to say, I won't be voting in one again.

This also means that, just based on elections alone, the entire government apparatus has a no greater than 40% chance of being legitimate-- and that's not getting to natural rights theory, an exploration of the so-called "social contract theory", or anything else. Belief in the State is pure mysticism at best.

As for individual politicians, Creepy Joe repeatedly said "China is our friend! We should lift them up!", before we found out that he was making "pay to play" business deals with them under the table, for cash. The probability of taking anything a politician says at face value is probably much less than 40%.


Bonus Analogy

Let's say I have ten peanut butter cups on my desk. You say, "Hey Sniper, look-- a comet!" I turn back, and now my desk only has nine peanut butter cups on it. You then say, "Hey Sniper, look-- a T-Rex!" I turn back, and only eight peanut butter cups remain. I say to you, "You bastard, stop stealing my candy!", to which you respond, "There's no evidence to support that claim."