Statistical Anomalies

Suppose there was an election, it doesn’t matter what the election is for; president, senator, mayor, city dogcatcher, whatever, and suppose that on the night of the election one candidate, let’s call him Bob, was a thousand votes ahead of the other candidate, Jim. Now suppose there is a pause in the vote-counting and then when the counting resumes it turns out that during the pause there was an influx of 1500 votes, which when counted turn out to be 1400 for Jim and only 100 for Bob, enough for Jim to win the election. Wouldn’t you think there was something strange going on?

What if Bob were comfortably ahead in every precinct in the city except one, but that one precinct was so overwhelmingly for Jim (99%) that it was enough to win the election for Jim. Wouldn’t you suspect that there was something a little suspicious going on in that one precinct?

What if the local newspaper, which had only run positive stories about Jim, portraying him as a saint who spends his spare time feeding the homeless while writing news stories reporting that “unnamed sources state” that Bob regularly beat his wife and children, foreclosed on widows and orphans, and had a serious problem with body odor, announced Jim’s victory in the election before the counting was even completed. and treated Bob’s demands for an audit and a recount with contempt, labeling him a sore loser and advising his supporters to accept the fact that they lost and to move on? Wouldn’t you think that that newspaper was not really a very reliable source of news about the elections and probably shouldn’t be trusted to be objective or honest?

All of this is precisely what we are being asked to believe about the election of 2020. In this election, we saw Donald Trump begin with a lead in several swing states the evening of the election, only for his rival, Joe Biden to receive mysterious influxes of votes, enough to put him over the top to victory. In an honest count, you would expect the ratio of votes for the candidates to be approximately the same from the beginning of the count to the conclusion. This is in fact, what allows for winners of elections to be projected even before the counting is finished. There would be variations, of course. One candidate might have more support in a certain precinct, while the other might have more support elsewhere. Sometimes you might encounter strings of votes for one candidate, however, the voting might fall out. What you would not expect would be to see a series of hundreds or even thousands of votes for Biden with no votes for Trump, no votes for third party candidates, not even some joker writing in Micky Mouse. This is simply not a probable outcome in an honest election. It is like flipping a coin fifty times and coming up heads forty-eight times.

Now, improbable does not mean impossible and improbable outcomes do not necessarily indicate that there was anything amiss in the election. Yet if I flip a coin and it comes up heads forty-eight times out of fifty you would have just cause to suspect that I might be using some sort of trick coin, weighted to come up heads. If we were playing poker and a player got an improbable hand, such as a royal flush, three times in a row, that would not necessarily mean the player was cheating, yet we might be advised to check if he has any cards up his sleeves.

The suspicion that something is wrong is only increased when no examination is permitted. If I refused to allow you to examine my coin; if the player refused to consent to have his sleeves searched, we would be all the more justified in assuming that some sort of trickery is going on. Yet, again, this is precisely what is happening with the election. First, Biden was proclaimed the winner, even when the outcome was uncertain. Ever since we have been told, over and over that Biden is the President-elect before anything was certified. Any questions about the statistical irregularities or accounts of illicit behavior on the part of poll workers have been dismissed as baseless claims on the part of a sore loser. Investigations into irregularities are denounced as assaults against democracy. Social media has been busily censoring any accusations of fraud or really any attempt to question whether Joe Biden really won the election.

The attempt, coming from many directions, to present the alleged results of the election of 2020 as beyond any serious question only serves to make the whole business even more suspicious. If this were an honest election, what harm would it do to investigate even seemingly baseless claims of fraud. Why are so many people so nervous about people expressing the opinion that is was not honest. When someone assures us that he is an honest man, that is a good sign that he is not, in fact, honest. When Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the entire mainstream media are taking such pains to assure us that there was no fraud in the election while censoring anyone who dares to assert there was, should we not conclude that the election was indeed fraudulent.

I am not a person given to conspiracy theories. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy without any help from the government. I believe that we really did go to the Moon and that 9/11 was not an inside job. I am not a person who would ordinarily subscribe to the idea that there has been a conspiracy to rig the election unless there was good reason to believe so. I believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates that there was a conspiracy to use fraud to ensure that Donald Trump was defeated in his bid for reelection. I believe, without any doubt, that the results of the election that have been released are fraudulent and that Joe Biden is neither the legitimate winner of the election or the legitimate President of the United States.

Conspiracy Theories

By some chance the other day I happened to read two separate pieces on conspiracy theories, which caused me to think a little about conspiracy theories. Or, perhaps it wasn’t by chance. Maybe they wanted me to read them.

Anyway, the first was this article in Cracked.com which listed five conspiracy theories that are easily debunked. Cracked.com is a comedy website, the successor to the magazine Cracked, which was, for a time, the biggest competitor to Mad Magazine. Although their articles are written to be humorous, I have found many of them to be surprisingly informative. The whole point of this particular article was that some of the most popular conspiracy theories, the JFK assassination, faked moon landings, 9/11 truthers, are easily debunked with a little true knowledge to events and with the use of common sense or reasoning.

The second article I read was by Walter Hudson at PJMedia. He describes himself as a former conspiracy dabbler and writes about the attractions and problems of conspiracy theories.

Enter Alex Jones, with his seemingly plausible claim that the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, fronts for a globalist conspiracy to erect a New World Order. Look! We have video of Bush 41 telling Congress about it. Look! We sneaked into the Bohemian Grove and took creepy footage of a strange ceremony. Look! That hole in the Pentagon wasn’t shaped like an airplane… as if aluminum leaves a cartoon silhouette in reinforced concrete.

After many months veraciously taking in everything Prison Planet had to offer, watching Jones entire catalog of documentary-style films and following his organization’s “alternative news” and even having a couple of my personal blog entries cross-posted on his site, I eventually began to tire of the shtick. There were a number of things which contributed to my rejection of the conspiracist mindset.

First, as I began to get more involved in political activism and came to know people in positions of real power, their bumbling humanity undercut any sense that they might be part of a massive globalist conspiracy. That observation added credence to the idea that vast, complex conspiracies like those posited by 9/11 truthers, who more often than not don’t even agree with each other, would require far more covert cooperation among innumerable co-conspirators than is remotely feasible.

I also found it suspect that Jones and his ilk never presented practical solutions, even within the context of their unique worldview. If anything, they seemed to employ the very fear-mongering tactics they accused others of using. To listen to Jones on a regular basis is to live on the edge of a knife, in constant anticipation of tomorrow’s martial law, complete with door-to-door gun confiscation and cattle cars delivering patriots to concentration camps.

It must be a heady feeling to know that you are one of the few who know what is really going on. You can have that welcome sense of superiority over the sheeple around you. Then too, there is the excitement of being in a world in which a vast struggle is going on behind the scenes. There is the delicious fear that tomorrow may be the day when they round dissenters like yourself up and ship them off to the FEMA concentration camps. Along with the human instinct for imposing order on chaotic or random events,these must be a powerful psychological impulse to believe in conspiracies.

For my part, I do not give much credence to conspiracy theories. There have been many conspiracies throughout history, in the sense that people have plotted and connived ways to control events, but the fact that many of these conspiracies have either been less than successful, or have not remained secret  for very long suggests that a vast conspiracy of a powerful secret society is not very probable. Most conspiracy theories assume that the conspirators possess superhuman intelligence and foresight and have influence everywhere. The truth is that people are idiots. I mean no one is capable of planning for every conceivable contingency and even if one were able to, something unexpected is likely to occur. How many military campaigns have gone exactly as the generals have planned them?

Then too, the conspiracy theory requires everyone in the conspiracy to be of one mind in the planning and execution of the plot. How likely is that? Think about the times in school when your teacher had the students form groups for a group project. How did that go? Think about your coworkers. Are there never disputes over what to do and how to do it? In a conspiracy which includes the most powerful people in the world, wouldn’t they also have some of the biggest egos in the world? How likely are people used to giving commands going to submit to other people’s plans?

It is also human nature to form factions. Every major religion and many political movements splits into sects and schisms given time. If there were some vast conspiracy out there, how long would it take before the movement would split? Why wouldn’t some disgruntled former conspirator go public?

Hudson concludes with the real danger that such theories pose.

Therein lays the reason why conspiracists are genuinely dangerous. Just as it would be ill-advised to drive while blindfolded or fly an airplane in whiteout conditions without instruments, proceeding through life in denial of the facts at hand leads inexorably to harm. Genuine threats to life, liberty, and property exist in the real world and deserve an informed response. Conflating those with imagined or unproven threats diverts attention from where it ought to be focused. More fundamentally, the goal of a properly whittled down government limited to its single rightful purpose of protecting individual rights, if achieved, would inherently defang any malevolent conspiracy. So why not focus on achieving that rather than converting people to believe “the truth” regarding a particular incident?

In my experience, the conspiratorial mindset presents the believer with an excuse for inactivity. Sure, the Alex Joneses of the world happily trot around the globe chasing Bilderbergers, shoving cameras in people’s faces, and ranting in bullhorns. But that’s not activism. It doesn’t accomplish anything. It doesn’t affect public policy or otherwise secure individual rights. On the contrary, it drives an addictive sense of perpetual revolution where believers stand ever ready to shoot back, yet won’t bother to participate in the political process and effect real change. It’s so much easier to sit holed up in your bomb shelter, cleaning your arsenal for the day the Man comes to take it, than to roll up your sleeves and commit to the humble and often tedious work of politics. One of those options has the virtue of seeding real change. The other proves self-indulgent.

In fact, you have to wonder whether the Bilderbergers are spreading outlandish conspiracy theories in order to hide what they are really out there. If I don’t post on this blog again, you’ll know they got to me.