Keyser Söze Comes to Clark County

I enjoy films to the extent my mind is hopelessly polluted by them. For example, mere mention of the word rationalization has a good chance of replaying in my head the scene from The Big Chill where Jeff Goldblum’s character claims you can’t get through the day without a big, juicy rationalization, that they’re even more important than sex. Tom Berenger’s character pushed back, “Oh, come on, nothing’s more important than sex,” prompting the unforgettable line: “Have you ever gone a week without a rationalization?”

Lately, my twisted movie brain has been rewriting this movie scene to claim conspiracy theories are more important than rationalizations. “Oh, come on,” Tom and Jeff might object. Well, try to get through an hour without a big, juicy conspiracy theory during the fall of the American Empire.

I imagine this elaborate scene because of how often I encounter “adults” in the room who claim to ride above the fray of conspiracy. They equate CT with Pizzagate and Qanon and Jewish space lasers and confidently assert their determination to avoid, steer away from what ranges from ridiculous to dangerous. While I respect their intent to stay out of time wasting rabbit holes, their confidence strikes me as illogical. The logical fallacy is we’re surrounded by conspiracies and we can’t help but know it, as one after another is unraveled through current events. Avoiding any theories is an intent fraught with peril, like committing to letting every attack just surprise, just slam you in the face. Instead, we must watch for the con, the grift. It’s the human condition. Someone’s always seeking an angle. Who? Where? How? We’re marks when we’re not studying our reality with some measure of paranoia.

An example popped on my screen just today. I saw an article on Apple’s settlement over the behavior of Siri. My wife and I used to joke about spies listening to us. I’d mention to her we might need snow tires. Then in the days following, we’d both be stalked by online ads for snow tire deals, even though my casual spoken comment was the only evidence of interest. Coincidence? Suspecting it wasn’t felt like amusing paranoia. Alexa was the first spy we shut down. Eventually, we turned Siri’s features off, as well. And now we know, regardless of whether these digital eavesdroppers heard us or not, they were indeed spying for advertisers, and poor Tim Apple’s writing a fat check between his visits to Mar-a-swampo.

I listened to an interview of Adam Schiff last night and he mocked Marjorie Taylor Green’s conspiratorial thinking. While I agree with his disparaging sentiment — she’s aka Madam Jewish Space Lasers, after all — the actual words he chose caused a cringe, as he implied all conspiracy thinking was distraction at best. Adam, that woman’s conspiring against you 24x7, so if you’re not developing theories, the blue team’s in trouble.

I marvel at how much even the most intelligent among us seem determined to entirely shut off this lens on the world. This is likely rooted in our battle to protect reality from delusion, an important struggle, I understand. However, I was in middle school when Nixon said he wasn’t a crook. Most of the adults surrounding me seemed inclined to accept his claim until the tapes arrived. Then, when I was in college, there were preposterous allegations Reagan was selling arms to Iran to fund covert wars in Central America. That was crackpot until his administration was selecting fall guys for jail over facts eventually revealed. One of the craziest ideas from those days accused the CIA of selling crack in lower income neighborhoods of the U.S. to help fund those same Central American wars. This also turned out to be true, though we weren’t allowed to know until well after the reporter Gary Webb lost his life attempting to warn us. Then there were the allegations a deal was made with Iran to keep our hostages in captivity until after the 1980 election, weakening Carter and helping elect Reagan. More crazy stuff that we were told to scoff at until learning it was true, thanks to investigative journalists (aka conspiracy theorists) like Craig Unger spending three decades sleuthing out the undeniable evidence.

Of course I could go on and on, with endless examples of how, while conspiracy theory is dangerous, conspiracy reality is much worse. Neither is optional.

Hakeem Jeffries spoke to the newly sworn in congress on Friday, and he boasted in response to Republican’s applause over his acceptance of the new Orange King, “There are no election deniers on our side of the aisle.” Again, I agree with the sentiment, but cringe over the chosen words. Madam Jewish Space Lasers was in the audience, along with dozens of rascals who assisted the 2020 alternative electors scheme and helped stir up the rioters needed for J6 disruption. It feels good to face that body as the reasonable one, the grown up, but I wish Leader Jeffries had inserted the words “without sufficient evidence” right after “election deniers.” Then he could’ve been both grown up and prepared for what I fear will eventually become undeniable.

One of my favorite lines for addressing this arrogance as it strays towards naiveté: I’m a conspiracy theorist and so are you. This clarifies how much theory is required on both sides of any controversy. It might seem too cute to equate theories denying the existence of conspiracies with theories claiming validity, but that’s logical. You might say guilt must be proven, innocence doesn’t have to be, but that’s not how our judicial standard of reasonable doubt actually works. It’s also not how critical thinking works. An allegation based on supporting evidence must be knocked down by other evidence, better theories. Whenever an alleged conspiracy arrives, those in support and those in denial, begin to build a ledger, with evidential fact and theory on each side, competing for our reasonable belief or doubt. Attempting to shut down all examination of conspiracy theory is a tactic of those who understand their side of the ledger is lacking.

Sarah Kendzior may have said this best. In her Author’s Note at the beginning of her book They Knew. She explains, “They Knew discusses the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, two terms that those in power want us to believe are inseparable so that we remain ignorant of the past and passive about the future.”

Understanding this dynamic is crucial, so I will illustrate first with an example from the past. Power would tell us any belief Oswald was not the lone gunman who assassinated JFK is unfortunate conspiracy theory, while drenching those last two words with a tone of disdain. Yet if you accept the lone gunman theory, you’re also committed to the single bullet theory. Only three bullets could’ve been fired from Oswald’s rifle in those six seconds in Dallas. Ballistic evidence proved one of those shots missed and one of them blasted JFK’s head apart. The other single bullet must have put holes in JFK’s back and his throat, then Governor Connally’s chest, left wrist, and right thigh, before finding its way to either, depending on what variation to the theory you choose, the seat cushion behind JFK or the gurney that carried JFK into the hospital. This is also called the magic bullet theory. And, congratulations, this may be the most scientifically improbable theory ever invented to resist a conspiracy. It must be believed, though, because you can’t have a lone gunman without it, and power wants Oswald acting alone to be your truth.

Now I’ll illustrate with the present. Some claim Russia conspired with the campaign of our Orange overlord to secure his election. He, of course, claims this is only conspiracy theory — Russia, Russia, Russia, it’s all a hoax. Now if you’re inclined to resist this particular form of CT, you must possess many opposing theories, such as theories for how a famous election consultant to the Kremlin, Paul Manafort, showed up to run the campaign. Also, a theory is needed for why Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik, a former intelligence officer of Russia’s GRU, thought to be Russia’s lead agent on foreign election interference, and shared with him the campaign’s internal swing state analysis, including demographics and polling. At this point, you also need a theory for the odd coincidence of how the NY FBI office, responsible for encouraging FBI Director Comey to open up fresh investigation into Clinton’s emails late in the campaign, was being run by an agent later caught accepting bribes from Russian oligarchs. You need a theory for why the candidate’s intentions were innocent when he said, “Russia, if you’re listening . . .” I’m just scratching the surface. Read the Mueller report. Read the Senate Intelligence Committee report. Bring some energy drinks. The number of opposing theories you will have to twist together and stretch will be exhausting. But then power offers you an escape valve, a way to be passive. Just dismiss all as only conspiracy theory. Russia, Russia, Russia. I mean, conspiracy theory is bad, right?

Well, it can be considered bad only if you’ve made the logical error of believing it’s optional.

Now today we face what is likely the most consequential, most impactful conspiracy of our lifetimes, of our nation’s lifetime, the conspiracy to reinstall an enemy nation’s asset in our White House by hacking not just America’s pliable minds, but also its vulnerable election infrastructure. If you plan to dismiss this controversy as only CT, you better know your opposing theories are correct. You’re going to need convincing evidence, and sound theories of the case, on your side of the ledger.

Let’s consider some of what you need.

You need a theory on those election night bomb threats. The latest count of them exceeds 200. Just a voter suppression tactic, you suggest? Okay, then, that’s your theory.

You need a theory for why Russian hackers have claimed credit for the hack and offered operationally correct code for how they did it. Just trolling us? Is that your theory? Okay, maybe. They wouldn’t actually use that code before boasting about it online, we can suppose.

How about those right-wing election workers who posted pictures of themselves wearing T-Shirts with the election equipment’s hardwired backdoor passwords displayed on them? They’re just trolling us too, you say? They would never actually use those passwords to flip votes? Okay, that’s your theory.

The unusual drop off vote that favors the orange alleged Russian asset in swing states, that’s just reflection of his surging popularity in the later stages of the campaign, despite polling reflecting the opposite, right? Okay, that’s another theory. Add “pollsters are completely clueless” to your list of theories. Maybe include a hypothesis on why Ann Selzer, gold standard pollster of Iowa, who routinely picked winners of the last seven cycles and only once missed outside the margin of error, by being 5 points off in 2018, was somehow over 16 points off in this cycle. Why did Ann wig out like that? Maybe you can sue her to find out. Oh, wait, before you sue her, perhaps study how the drop off disparity on this chart for District 1 conveniently went up 8 points for DT and down 8 points for KH, a difference of exactly those 16 points in Ann’s miss.

DireTalks recently posted interesting analysis of the Clark County, NV vote that appears to have been accidentally released early on their web site. This vote presents a number of fresh mysteries.

Now we need a theory for a 22.8% swing between Mail and Early vote, which were occurring in roughly the same time period. Easy, you say, Republican voters were discouraged from voting by mail. Okay, but then the vote swung back toward the left on election day. Why were Republicans 8.5% stronger in early vote versus election day vote? Also, why exactly were Republicans discouraged from voting by mail? Some have suggested Republicans do this because they lose ability to manipulate Mail in vote. Interesting theory, do you know why it’s wrong? Because this might be a different way to explain the 22.8% swing.

Okay, maybe you’re shrugging your shoulders at this stage. It’s wild speculation about odd human behavior. No real evidence yet.

But then DireTalks illustrates something beyond odd human behavior. He presents a vote by tabulator analysis of Early Vote. This shows tabulators counting higher volumes of vote skewing heavily toward DT after the count of about 380 votes. He compares this to 2020 and the same phenomenon occurred then, except the skew occurred at approximately the 600 vote volume. This appears to only be explainable by machine level algorithm. No voter has knowledge of what tabulator will count their vote. Demographic differences, if they substantially exist, would appear to favor an opposite skew, with higher volumes occurring in more urban areas of the county, where vote likely favors the left. Also, Election Day volume was overall much lower than Early Vote. This might explain the skew back toward the left, as tabulation reached the 380 volume level less often.

On the whole, this appears to be a clean view of a hack. What’s your opposing theory? Well, I’m not going to be able to help you on this one.

DireTalks moves on to another fascinating anomaly in the same data set. His team notices what data scientists who’ve studied Russian election manipulation have called the “Russian Tail.” As the vote accumulates in the system, it should conform to a bell curve. When 20% of the votes arrives, about 20% of the KH vote should also be present along with 20% of the DT vote. When 50% of the vote arrives, then 50% of KH’s vote along with 50% of DT’s vote. And so on. Each portion of one candidate’s vote should approximate the portion of the total, each curve, Total, KH, and DT, roughly forming the shape of bells. This doesn’t occur in Clark County. Instead, KH vote bubbles on the left of the bell curve and DT vote bubbles on the right of it. This is exactly what we would see if vote flipping were executed. This is also exactly what was seen in the nation of Georgia, where Russian manipulation was exposed.

Now we need a theory for why vote accumulation in an election should not be expected to follow a bell curve. The data scientists who discovered and publicized the Russian Tail phenomenon would like to hear this theory. Again, I’m not going to be able to help here.

I recommend you watch the full video presentation of Election Truth Alliance, where analysis has been done by @beesknees33.bsky.social‬ (Bluesky) and u/soogood (Reddit), and eloquently presented by @diretalks.bsky.social (Bluesky).

And I could go on and on, with charts from Arizona and Texas and North Carolina, etc. The anomalies data analysts are finding are overwhelming. Each of them begs new theories.

If you’re still resisting the summary theory that suggests the 2024 election’s vote might’ve been hacked, you should at least feel an accumulation of required evidence and counter theory piling up on your side of the ledger. Becoming a conspiracy theorist is not optional, only the favored theories are selective.

It’s a clever trick that primes us to wave all the theorizing away, dismiss as just one wild, dubious endeavor. This attempted wave is logically impossible, though, our indecision a form of decision. Our conspiracy theory necessity is greater than even our need for “big, juicy rationalizations,” as we can never go long without one, especially these days.

While there’s a hyper resistance to conspiracy when it comes to elections, the good news is the truth is lying in stacks of paper across those seven swing states. We only need the will to count a bit of it.

This is where my polluted by film mind thinks of another movie experience, The Usual Suspects. That film taught us Keyser Söze wisdom: “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.” That’s what has been done to us in conspiracy land. If we begin with the belief the devil doesn’t exist, we’re not likely to see his handiwork. Bomb threats are just unsolved mysteries. Tabulator skews and Russian Tails will not appear. Keyser Söze walks away, limping at first, then gradually not limping, smiling as he thinks those same words that’ve been haunting me since Elon’s kid chanted them with a menacing laugh, “They’ll never know.”