A Note on Judith Butler's Voter Fraud and BLM Conspiracies
On Absolute Conspiracy.
Let’s translate the whole thing back into the tattered Real.—Extinctive attainture is all that happens now. If you agree, you are a terrorist. This ‘if you think x, then y’ tropology has been building under A.H.’s mask since at least 2015. By now the translation is intimate: if you mention or tangle with extinction in any of its raw forms—and it takes all raw forms (attainture, incitation, zero-evidence) without even wanting to or being known as such—then you are the hermeneutic traitor to the species and the insurrectionist in primal outline.
Judith Butler’s recent op-ed in The Guardian is a display in such relapse tactics, self-implicating and -exempting the good spirit of the intellectual—as is now common to nearly all writers and makers of talent, genius, artificial stupidity, whatever.
The text claims, among other things, that the Capitol protest was a ‘violent rejoinder to BLM’. The first problem here is a certain materialism at the level of description: for Butler, the vote is just the vote, and the insurrection is simply not the summer riots. But what if we turn the black box into an allegory that refuses to keep getting yanked all the way back into post-Trumpland affects?
We are effectively voting into the void and insisting on not even wanting to know. Anthropomorphism as human frame hardware zooms into shapes . . . now what? Anything, really . . . It attaches to all and every ideo-meme. We can’t see inside, in the most formal of senses.
In terms of what Butler says literally, since racial issues have often been defined in America according to the dimension of the vote, its procuring and safeguarding, then for anyone who knows that mass voter fraud has been on the historical record at least since the EVS market was created after Bush-Gore, the protest at the Capitol was a vote against democratic dispossession i.e. a vote against the basis of slavery. In other words, it was the opposite of a ‘violent rejoinder to BLM’.
Without some degree of representational integrity in America, which claims democracy as its system, everyone would still be that system’s slaves, and in this way, the Capitol event was BLM’s (hidden) supplement. What started out as mass protest in the summer of 2020 ended with the extinctive attainture principle itself being primed: if you mention the slavery at the heart of the representational system, you are extinct to us.
What does it mean, quantically, that intelligence of the best kind is now in a state of viral relapse? What does it signify for you that intelligence, no matter how artificial, is extinction-primed?
(In some ways, this analytic is not really concerned with the 2020 machines and Dominion void-boxes (never to be proven or disproven—Mike Lindell’s paradox)—but about an a-democratic black Gestell. The important thing is the sending away of all evidence—of extinction—its disappearing into some kind of frame, without affect or tears.)
This time slavery—distraction, insurrectional relapse—is unthinkable to us. Here are the main conspiracies that launch it into the day:
There is time for transition—there where the transition may be between identities or graphematic eras (the vestiges of communism, build back or out better, and so on). Allow the clone to say the opposite.
‘Covid’ is our main concern—instead ‘Covid’ names the seriality of an extinction row of block(busters) and further prohibitors that have little to do with us, and a quantic greater health.
Aesthetics still has a bearing, a hearing—‘cringe’ is not a local forecast silo but an ontological terminus and remnant. Reading and writing and making make do but are not our concern.
A refrain in Butler’s piece is that Trump’s loss is unthinkable to him, that he has no relation to loss, and that a lack of relation to loss is a distinguishing sign of ‘white supremacy’. Such is relapse defined. The thorny problem is that it is significantly far from certain that Trump lost, just as it is significantly far from certain that he won. In fact, it is in the very nature of ‘black box’ EVS Gestell to erase all traces of what took place in the voting Augenblick and to resemble actual (democratic) extinction. In this way, Trump has no real way way of knowing he won, and yet CNN has no grounds at all for insisting there was no significant fraud.
The whole double-cuck signature beat syncopates around a ‘lack of evidence’ time-hole, but only because the democratic Gestell is designed to create just that lapsus. Zero-evidence? Gee, of course!! That’s where we go.
As Hugh Thompson puts it in the following nested clip:
I’d say the thing that shocked me was how easy vote totals could be changed. So imagine you can go into a box and essentially rewrite history, and there’s no record of you rewriting history, and the only record of the history itself is the thing that you changed. And that’s pretty scary to me.
Or as is echoed here:
The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.
There is a perfect coincidence here—an Absolute Conspiracy Theory—between that which disappears the history of the thing itself being recorded (one-off biomorphic extinction) and the unrelenting destabilisation of America’s favourite mock-drug (black box democracy). When and if we are all gone, there will have been no record of us here, no record even of us changing the history of what we did here to ourselves, crafting the conceptual oxygen. ‘And that’s pretty scary to me.’
Is it more extinction for there to be no record of existence or for there to be no record of existence changing itself or for there to be no record of existence changing its history of it changing itself etc? Does any of this have anything to do with the various forms of democracy?
In 2006 Thompson also commented along similar lines:
Given the types of vulnerabilities that have been found, proving (and sometimes even detecting) foul play can be very difficult if the malicious person is skilled and the effect is minor (meaning a small percentage of the actual votes cast). For the types of vulnerabilities uncovered in some of the touch screens, optical scan readers, and backend tabulation systems, exploits can be written for some of them that are ‘self erasing’. This means that the last executed bits of code can change things so that it looks like the original which could make slight tampering difficult to detect or prove in purely electronic systems.
The onus in diatribes in this zone—the zone itself, of vanishing—should perhaps not be on the ‘loser’ who claims there is fraud, but on the ‘winner’ who claims there is none. Extreme electoral fraud, which is to say ‘self erasing’ voting technology, is so historically common in America, especially since the rise of the machines after 2000, that any demand for proof should be directed first of all at the victor. Why? Because the victor—quantumly—wishes to assume and consume extinction as a right at first sight.
More locally, but less logically, the question is not, ‘if Trump won why didn’t he win?’, but, ‘if Biden is president, how can it be possible he really might have lost?’ Or, how could 2020 possibly have been an exception to what we already know to be rife, at least according to the principle that what persisted until just before the election is bound to have continued? In other words, the null hypothesis discourse (‘zero-evidence’, ‘baseless lies’, ‘incitement’) would ask, of itself, to be reversed, as a kind of test of entropic rhetoric. We might—so the complaint goes—start not by assuming a clean voting system (the zero), but by knowing that the vote is indeed under threat, and beyond all principles of immediate evidence or even perception (1+). Those who use the null hypothesis to beat you over the head are essentially saying: there is no (democratic) extinction.
In Butler’s text, there is no doubt at all on this question (she is a null-hypothesis advocate, a headbanger like most serious ‘intellectuals’ now are), and it is just this complete absence of doubt that characterises a large amount of ‘the discourse’, extremely broadly speaking, as a form of ubiquitous relapse. Let’s call this enormous architectonic an enclave of psychosis, keystoned on the issue of democratic extinction, and swamping the mystic with the mystic group.
The Butler op-ed is not really a text. It is more an example of vacuum-packed standardized Manichaean jargon. She writes:
Before the assault on the Capitol, it was surely worrisome or even humorous that Trump manically sought to nullify his losses by any means possible. But this makes sense if we think about a general inability to acknowledge loss, an acknowledgment, Freud tells us, that is the work of mourning. To mourn, though, there has to be a way to mark that loss, a way to communicate and register it and, in this sense, it requires communication and at least the potential of public assent.
This recommendation of mourning for a somewhat distant patient is a viable way of looking at things, but it is not the only one—given that the precise nature of the loss, and to whom it belongs to, is merely assumed. To believe that EVS systems have reached a point where mass manipulation of results is possible, and precisely without leaving a trace, this too would be a type of loss, and extinction, perhaps one too difficult for America as a whole to let in. The ‘damage to the Capitol’ is hyperbolically stressed, we might say, precisely because there is a fear around admitting what was already not present there: the sacrosanct element of the demos, its life insurance. At the same time, if the admission of almost total dispossession of the vote as such becomes impossible, then the work of mourning is equally blocked—even if, at that moment, differently.
The dual-loss here, which is neither certain nor in doubt, would be as follows: the more machines appropriate the vote, the more both sides are denied a reliable sense of having won, and the more they are shut off from the process of ‘closure’ as well as ‘jubilation’. To refuse the historical evidence for EVS extinction and attainture is a greater risk than Trump’s own Evidential Wager, as imagined or even projected by Butler, since it disallows in advance the possibility of system reform in such a direction that all lives be represented and be subjected to survivance, when black lives especially would begin to fully count for what would then be the first time.
Butler goes on:
The formula goes something like this: I cannot live in a world in which the object I value is lost, or I cannot be the person who has lost what I value. I will destroy the world that reflects back to me that I have lost, or I will leave that world through recourse to fantasy.
This 101 rendition of classic analytic loss curvatures could quite easily be turned round, or at least varied. For example: I, the victor, cannot live in a world in which a figure as ambivalent and otherwise fraudulent as Donald Trump happens to be aligned with a principle of truth (mass EVS corruption) that nobody wishes to admit, precisely because the implications for ‘democracy’ are too many and too great.
Or: I may be on the winning side of the election, but one thing I have no interest in admitting is the imminent and complete loss of the democratic fantasy itself, which it has been my privilege and jouissance to keep going. Hence, those who believe that voter fraud is widespread, which at least in previous elections it has been, must not only be side-lined, but deprogrammed and punished. Why? Because they threaten our fraudulent enjoyment with their fraudulent honesty.
Why does someone as intelligent as Judith Butler refuse to allow in possibilities she is of course otherwise capable of letting in when not concerned with this issue? She adds,
White supremacy has now resumed an open place in US politics, and Trumpism will outlast Trump, and continue to assume new forms.
OK, but then what kind of mournable loss is available in a situation in which the object mourned, motored by ‘white supremacy’, will, as confidently claimed, ‘continue to take new forms’? And:
So it’s time for the racists to grieve that loss, but it is doubtful that they will.
The loss, which has not happened (because it will continue in new forms), is now to be grieved. Now’s the time. The Kairos has arrived. But no, it’s doubtful they will. The time has arrived, for the loss. But no, it has not.
And:
They will live out their fantasy until historical reality checks them. Let us hope that the Biden rejoinder is not to intensify the police state for this purpose. That would be a cruel irony.
But this particular ‘rejoinder’ has already taken place.