Real News and Fake News
Look at this page: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-election-idUSKCN11I0NA
Two important pieces of news here.
One is that the Austrian presidential elections have been postponed. These elections are the repetition of the elections done in May. Why are they repeating them? Because of massive electoral fraud. Electoral fraud done to give the election to a leftist candidate, against an anti-immigrant rightist one.
This sounds trivial but it's the first time in... a 100 years? That fraud is a thing in European elections. This is how bad things have got.
And they're worse still, as the elections are being postponed because of tampering with postal votes! This is how bad things have got. If something happens to democracy it won't be because of the persuasive powers of reactionary writers. It'll be because the left realizes it's not in its interest anymore. Kinda like the fall of the Soviet Union.
This other piece of news is also interesting. Stop your Ad-blocker for a minute and look at the bottom right corner.
screen-shot-2016-09-12-at-20-34-25
In this world of today, where all print media is effectively bankrupt, and surviving only due to public subsidies or the whims of billionaires, Reuters is still honest enough to relegate its sponsored content, i.e. it's corporate propaganda to a small corner of its website. But look at the first article. Climate change is the biggest single threat facing the world economy. That seems like a fairly normal headline, doesn't it? I've seen that on actual newspapers all the time. But we of course know what the deal was all along. Now Reuters is nice enough to make it explicit. Sponsored Content. Of course it is.
20 comments
[…] Real News and Fake News […]
That it isn't big news is big news. Ten years ago it would have dominated headlines. These days I think there is a creeping realization on all sides that democracy has done its dash. The left can see that angry heritage populations will use it to block their globalist agenda and that they may not be able to replace electors quickly enough. The right can see that earlier philosophers were correct: democracies eventually self-destruct by spending too much of productive people's money on the rabble who outnumber them. Liberal democracy worked well enough until we forgot what the 'liberal' part meant, and that it came first.
It is interesting that the Austrian supreme court didn´t let it pass in the first place. I know nothing about the details, perhaps it is such blatant fraud that it is undeniable.
Fraud has been a thing in elections in Europe before. E.g. 2015 in German elections in the state Bremen (https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150236737/Schueler-zaehlten-falsch-nun-ein-Sitz-mehr-fuer-die-AfD.html). There have been other instances where German Courts have ruled that there has been fraud. Bremen is just the only election that I can remember from the top of my head and provide a link. The interesting News here is that Austia isn't able or willing to hold fair elections according to the specifications of her Supreme Court. So they postponed the elections. If necessary, they can postpone the elections again and again and again...
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
They only need to block democracy for the few decades between the beginning of mass importation of new voters and these new voters becoming the majority. During this period, angry natives can use democratic institutions to overturn the wills of the left-wing intelligentsia, and that can't be allowed, but as soon as the immigrant population outnumber natives, democracy becomes cool again. So how can they justify temporary dictatorship to guide the demographic replacement of Europe? The second piece of news gives the way. "Climate change is too big a threat, we have to do away with democracy for a while so that an enlightened despot can save the world, do not mind the waves of Africans destroying your local environment, what we mean to save is bigger".
That won't work. Europeans are much more active and aggressive than American's on border and cultural defense issues. And while they are not currently as well armed, its very easy to change that. No doubt Russia or just some corrupt private parties, weak states or clever manufacturers could provide plenty of small arms and ammo , explosives whatever . Pretty much any Austrian native is with basic training smart enough to make firearms. Hell Palestinians with double digit IQ's can do a good job of it, c.f Carlos used in the West Bank Its not a manpower game either but one of pure nastiness. The functional economic collapse a civil war means most immigrants starve to death fairly fast Now as for this situation, its certainly a big part of the elite's situation that they are openly are calling for not allowing the poor to vote as well as suspending elections This is not a bad thing though, people need to understand that the Left is a holiness spiral and like any religious fanatic will not willingly give up power. To my outsider eyes, this is what this the delay signifies, the Holy Crap the Right won moment . This means either the Left gives up power willingly or it will be taken or they try and kill the Right off in which case it becomes what Americans call a war to the knife. The later is hardly new in European history, power after all is zero sum and while it can be divided to some degree we can't all have it. The later isn't a bad thing, if you take power you can in fact rebuild society in ways that make it much more homogeneous and resistant to subversion and actually remove hostile institutions, globalist banks corporations, foundations and the like. Not that many years ago this would be impossible as the US would simply destroy anyone who tried but the US has its own problems as does Europe and that's not even considering The Bear and her nukes. Ideally the Right wins, does a good job and beats back the globalists bloodlessly but if not ? Diversity Proximity as always equals Conflict
"faulty ballots" "defective glue" Really Spandrell, I don't see what the big deal is? Obviously the problem is just that they're outsourcing their ballot production to China. One wonders how long the postponement must last. After all, the new glue must be tested to be sure it isn't defective, no?
Aren't postal ballots, early voting and such inherently invitations to fraud? Should the citizens of a democracy not agreeably admit that a stolen election is worse than a lack of convenient postal voting? Should recounts not be banned? Should provisional ballots not be banned? Should everything that has to do with the casting and counting of ballots not be confined to a single day and evening while witnesses are present? After counting, should ballots not be void from the moment the precinct judge turns the lights out on election night and goes home—that is, from the moment ballots leave witnesses' sight? Am I the only one who thinks like this?
B,b,but, think of those old and disabled people who can't vote!
Yes, exactly. In the final election of my life, when I am old and disabled, I too shall probably wish to vote; but maybe by then I'll also be blind, deaf, and too arthritic to hold a pencil, so someone else in the house will helpfully fill out the postal ballot on my behalf. And that's assuming that the postmaster doesn't introduce a ballot on my behalf. Not that postmasters are especially corrupt, but honest election procedures aren't supposed to trust any individual. What good are precinct witnesses when you have a cache of ballots they can't see? "But we have procedures for that!" they'll say. They're wrong. The security procedures sophisticated persons invent on our behalf are not the point (sophisticated security procedures are what gave us hackable electronic voting machines, remember). The point is that the procedures that are used be so simple and transparent that every voter with a 95 IQ can instantly grasp the procedures' operation and effect. Public confidence in the honest count of a democratic election is a big deal. Otherwise, I'd rather have an hereditary king (at whose birth witnesses of opposite parties were present, just like the opposite witnesses at a democratical polling place). Legitimacy matters much more than fairness does, in my view.
Regarding your 100 years: William Shirer was not sure that German elections and plebiscites under Nazi rule were honestly counted—though Shirer admitted that he had little proof other than the sheer implausibility of the vote totals (97, 98 percent) Nazi authorities announced. I don't believe that Shirer even stated that Nazi elections lacked precinct witnesses. Yet, though I'm somewhat softer on the Nazis than are most of my countrymen of my generation, I admit that I suspect that Shirer was right. The Nazis probably did cheat. It would be like them to cheat, and besides, the 97 percent does rather seem a bit high to credit. If the Nazis did indeed cheat, then that occurred within your 100 years. Still, my Nazi quibbling aside, your point is well taken.
In Italy, 1946, monarchy was replaced by a republican system via a referendum. It is common knowledge that the real votes gave the victory to monarchy. But who had the power wanted to end monarchy, and so they did. It was exactly like when today people give the vote to their wrong candidate or referendum option. Those who had long sight and knew much decided for the entire country, and they have always been proud of it. I shouldn't need tell you that the full spectrum of informative media celebrated the win of republic as a milestone in the "progress" of the nation. Well, the full spectrum less for "fascists" and real fascists. But those weren't even humans then. They had begun to be below-human ever-wrong beings as they are today. 70 years later, we have the same furiously blind arrogance on display regarding Brexit, every important matter concerning the European integration: referendums to approve the EU constitution — that no citizen knows since they did their best to allow no citizen to know of — or to join the Union were introduced by hard-handed full-time full-spectrum (save for the "fascists", but those aren't human) propaganda. When it didn't work, the referendum was repeated after some 6 or 12 months: until the results were correct. There is a difference from 70 years ago, though. Then politicians were careful to keep a facade of fairness: they feared the populations. You would never witness the bald outspoken arrogance of a Juncker, and the other German/Dutch/French rulers under which Europe is. We are farther from democracy then, and you will say this is not a problem (and I don't disagree), but nobody can say it's not a huge problem that we are governed by ghoulish celebrity politicians whose only concern is what history books will say of them in the tomorrow and what the press and the chattering class will say of them in the present. Many of these people don't even have an offspring. They are loyal, to their selves.
P.S.: How can it be nobody, nobody except me, sees there's chances that politician killed a few days pre-Brexit vote was an... operation? I mean, it looks so likely. Why would a crazed man strike right at the time when it will boost Remain's chances the most?... And then there are the polls. They have become a tool for hard propaganda too. Knowing that winners attract votes, polls say that the right candidate/option is going to win, in the face of reality. I'm eager to see what the next poll by ABC/Washington (Bezos) Post will say, considering last LA Times poll gave a 6 to Trump, and even the CNN says the two are tied now.
I am sorry for posting thrice in a row, but I noticed If something happens to democracy it won’t be because of the persuasive powers of reactionary writers. It’ll be because the left realizes it’s not in its interest anymore. Kinda like the fall of the Soviet Union. and wanted to point your attention to... something you don't need me to point your attention to. Bodies of matter (couldn't find a better name) like this are starting to raise their voice. It means they feel it possible, and, to my dismay, they aren't incurring problems, so yes, it's possible. What you say could be the outcome.
Oh you're not alone.
Its all for nothing anyway. As parasitic groups move in there is a tipping point where the state can no longer subsidize welfare for the unproductive, by plundering the wealth of the productive. As they import more Africans and Muslims, Europe becomes indistinguishable from the countries they came from. But its a moot point, because either way the native white Europeans are screwed. I hope they accelerate "Project Population Replacement" while there are still enough ethnic Europeans around to fight back.
The male frogs are jumping at the fast boiling but the female frogs apparently withstand the heat without jumping.
Just in case you missed this: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/11/multiculturalismjapanantikoreanprotests.html
The opposition party (the left) just elected a half-Chinese lady who has been illegally holding double-citizenship for decades. They are going to crush her and every other liberal they find. I get the feeling that Japan is just too old. Gerontocrats don't like foreigners. They're too cranky to put up with multiculturalism.