8 min read

How to Steal a Presidential Election

How to Steal a Presidential Election
Cookie Robbery, Norman Rockwell

The official narrative surrounding the 2020 presidential election is so transparently dishonest that I suspect even the most determined sleepwalkers will wake up to it very soon.   This is because the unstolen election narrative, like the "insurrection" narrative and Canadian-truckers-are-terrorists narrative, does not enjoy the deeply embedded emotional roots that are present in the pandemic narrative.

The pandemic narrative was and is diabolically brilliant and effective because it triggered the Reptile Mind's concern for physical safety.  The Reptile Mind is first and foremost concerned with the Reptile's own physical safety and, after that, the physical safety of the Reptile's family and community.  The mysterious, invisible, and uncontrollable threat of death-by-virus is what made the pandemic story so effective in deluding and hypnotizing the Reptile.  Because the "virus" was invisible, it was easy for the psychological  manipulators to contruct a menacing pandemic story that had no basis in reality.  Every death, every sniffle, every fever, every health anomoly could be attributed to the dreaded, invisible, virus.  The pandemic illusion scared the daylights out of the Reptile and locked him in to Safe Mode in which all critical thought is turned off.  

The unstolen election and insurrection narratives, on the other hand, have stubborn and very visible facts that do not fit well within propagandistic narratives.  The same is true of Trudeau's false truckers-are-terrorists narrative.  Indeed, the Canadian Freedom Convoy shows that the Reptile has now woken up and identified the real, very visible, enemy:  liars.  There appears to be no turning back.   What began two years ago with a Pareto-consistent 80 percent of the population being deceived and hypnotized by the false pandemic narrative has now shifted to an 80 percent being awakened to the very real perpetrators of the pandemic fraud.  

Unfortunately for the authors and the abettors of the pandemic, insurrection, and truckers-are-terrorists narratives, the Reptile hates liars and child abusers.  Stubborn, visible, facts have exposed Justin Trudeau as both a liar and a child abuser.  His political life is over.  As the herd wakes up to the threat posed to its children by the dangerous people who have promoted these false narratives, the end will look something like The Battle at Kruger.  Or worse.  It's only natural.  

Propaganda that does not cause imminent physical fear is necessarily less effective and has less staying power.  The insurrection narrative created the fear of physical harm only in a very small subset of the population--federal bureaucrats who live or work in Washington, D.C.  The nutty language used by some of the federal judges at January 6 sentencing hearings illustrates this.  These judges are actually afraid because of the images they see on their screens and how close they are to home.  Some of them very likely sincerely believe that The Big Lebowski and bunch of patriotic, fairy-tale believing Hobbits almost toppled the United States federal government.  This is the Reptile at work within the federal judiciary.  This irrational and at the same time very real fear is why none of the January 6 defendants can get a fair hearing in Washington, D.C.  

Before dissecting the propaganda supporting the unstolen election narrative, let me first admit my bias.  I believe that, given the stakes, the opacity of the process, the lack of meaningful audit procedures, and the unique vulnerability of the Electoral College system to targeted and leveraged fraud, it is more likely than not that every United States presidential election since at least 1888 (the year Benjamin Harrison enlisted the Dulles brothers' grandfather John Foster as his personal "trouble shooter" to assist with the election) has been "stolen" or "fixed" in one way or another.  That includes the 2016 election.  A better start date is probably 1791.  This bias is based on millenia of known and recorded behavior of fallen man.  There will always be men who will kill, lie, steal, and cheat to obtain and maintain power and money and every man has the potential to fall prey to this behavior.  If a political system rewards and does not adequately punish dishonest behavior, dishonest behavior is guaranteed.  To deny this is to naively deny reality.  History, including particulary U.S. history, makes this proposition self-evident.  

The best any society can do, therefore, is develop systems and processes that will minimize exposure of the known risk of dishonest behavior of fallen man in the election process.  The risk can never be completely eliminated, only minimized.  Until U.S. election procedures are changed to minimize the probability of fraud--decentralized controls and hand-counted physical paper ballots would be a good start, although that did not stop Lyndon Johnson from gaming that process--the burden of proof is on any government and any election winner to prove that the process was uncorrupted.  Sadly, until then our presumption must be that every election is corrupt.   Forget about Team Red and Team Blue.  We should not be happy if our favored team won unless we have adopted a decentralized and auditable system which minimizes the probability of fraud.  If it were up to me, I would start by handing over the riskiest parts of the process (high impact counties in high impact states) to the Lindy Christians--urban, black, brown, and honest.


The unstolen election narrative not only lacks emotional bite, it is completely devoid of emotion and contradicted by many visual images and therefore unpersuasive and self-dissembling.  Joseph Goebbels, Edward Bernays, and Ivy Lee would be embarrassed at the unstolen election propagandists' failure to first trigger fear in members of their target audience before misleading them into error.  The unstolen election narrative, like so many lately, was clearly prepared by the JV propaganda team.

The unstolen election narrative rests upon the following banal, weak-reed statements being repeated over and over by the main stream media:

"There is no evidence of widespread election fraud."

"[X number] of courts have considered election challenges and none have found evidence of fraud."

"The 2020 election was the most secure ever."    

Those with a modicum of critical thinking ability can recognize that these statements may be perfectly, 100 percent true and at the same time the 2020 election could be as stolen as a 2000 Honda Civic parked in downtown Baltimore for more than 5 hours.  

If a United States presidential election were stolen, there would of course be no evidence of "widespread" election fraud.  Because the Electoral College allows for "winner take all" votes by states, because there are only about 10-15 outcome-determinitive counties in nine outcome-determinitive states, an intelligent and efficient election thief would not engage in "widespread" election fraud.  The smart thief would leverage his efforts by focusing on the high-impact counties to win the outcome-determinitive states, particularly Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.    

As to the number of courts that have "considered" and rejected 2020 election challenges, anyone with knowledge and experience with judges, particularly lifetime appointment federal judges, knows that they are not typically the sort of people who will take a righteous or honest stand on anything.  There are exceptions of course, but the mindset of someone seeking the safe and secure lifetime-guarantee-if-you-don't-offend-the-wrong-people job of a federal judge is closer to the uber-safe and Establishment-protecting end of the safety-risk spectrum.  As such, any examination of the 2020 election challenge decisions will show that risk-avoidant judges refused to allow the cases to go forward, refused to allow them to be heard on the merits (evidence introduced and subject to cross examination), and would never allow themselves to be "in the news" by allowing a jury of voting citizens to decide whether election fraud had occurred.  These Establishment gatekeepers used every judicial sleight-of-hand available to avoid getting into the deep waters of The People v. The Establishment.   Their substance-avoiding methods include dismissing cases for "lack of standing," "mootness," "ripeness," "laches," and "political question."  Every 2020 election challenge case was dismissed by an avoidant judge defending the Establishment based on one of these non-substantive grounds.  Standing is a judge-created avoidance mechanism.  It is nowhere in the Constitution . The Constitution requires only a "case or controversy" in order to bring suit.  

Exhibit A in support of this proposition:   the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, dismissed Texas v. Pennsylvania, a case brought by the brilliantly effective Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for lack of standing.  The United States Constitution states that the United States Supreme Court has original, exclusive jurisdiction over "controversies between two or more states."  This means that the SCOTUS is the only court in which a dispute between states can be brought.   Texas' claim that Pennsylvania authorities violated their own laws and that that determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election is certainly a "controversy."  The supposed cream of the federal judiciary, SCOTUS, ignored the Constitution and punted.  

The only material adjudication of the 2020 election results was set to be heard on January 6, 2021 in the House of Representatives.  This potential adjudication was of course conveniently interruped when the Capitol police ushered The Big Lebowski and the The Hobbits past velvet ropes into the Capitol.  

Finally, as to the "security" of the 2020 election, it seems to me that what the propagandists are actually saying by using the word "secure" is sort of a nose-thumbing: "we had this thing wired from day 1."   The serious evidence of ballot tampering and harvesting and computer data manipulation (in outcome-determinitive counties and outcome-determinitve states) indicates that the 2020 election was "secure" only if you were on Team Blue and you knew you had complete control over the outcome.        


Presidential election history suggests that there are at least three ways of stealing a presidential election.  First, there is the conventional, hard way, in which Team Red and Team Blue conspire to ensure that two interchangable Establishment functionaries are left standing at the end of the primary process.  This is the "stolen fair and square" method and is the most common.  The best example is the 2004 election.  At the end of this process, among a population of 300 million people, left standing were two Yale graduates who were both members of the 16-member-a-year Skull and Bones Society.  This  process also requires a lot of work and resources to "fairly and squarely" eliminate populist candidates not beholden to Establishment interests.  The best example here is 2008, in which Team Red used massive media and monetary resouces to rub out Ron Paul and Team Blue did the same to rub out Dennis Kucinich.  

The second, unconventional method, involves election night theft--ballot stuffing, ballot harvesting, and/or computer rigging.  This is the "easy way" to steal an election.  It seems to be generally frowned upon by the Establishment, although it appears that Team Red may have used it usurp Team Blue in 2000 and, as the facts come in, Team Blue appears to have used it against Team Red in 2020.  Judging from past post-election events, the real problem appears to arise when non-Establishment actors use this second method to steal an election from the Establishment.   The Establishment's apoplexy following the 1960 and 2016 elections indicates that these elections may have been unduly influenced, a/k/a "stolen," by non-Establishment interests.   Stealing wasn't the problem.  Who did the stealing and who benefitted was the problem.  In 1960, Kennedy had the support of the Chicago mafia which flipped outcome-determinative Illinois in his favor.  In 2016, Trump also had the support of powerful gambling interests, which may have flipped outcome-determinative Florida in his favor.  We don't know.  There aren't enough available facts to make a sound judgment.  We do know that the Establishment's treatment of Kennedy and Trump were similarly hostile. The Establishment hated Kennedy and still hates Trump, with an irrational and insatiable zeal--like he was the unwitting beneficiary of something that was stolen from them.  

The third method is to shut down half of the world based on a fake pandemic and use all available means, including particularly mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, ballot stuffing, and computer manipulation to guarantee the desired outcome.  The jury is still out, but this appears to be what occurred in 2020.   Hopefully, someone somewhere is aware that federal law requires the retention of all presidential election records for 22 months following the election and they are obtaining, gathering, and preserving all the 2020 voting records in the 10-15 outcome determinative counties.  Facts are stubborn things.