I support communities creating borders but oppose state borders but since the State does not allow local communities to enforce their borders I am stuck using the State as my only mechanism of quarantine available and therefore temporarily support state borders of entry but not borders of exit except for preventing the violent from leaving.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 29
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Saturday, May 26, 2018
At what wage is forced employment no longer wage slavery?
Is making dogs cage fight each other for humans to bet on a violation of the non aggression principle. How much dog resources would you have to give the dogs for it not to be a violation. If $6.50 per hour worth of pet food and supplies is exploitive for cage fighting is a billion dollars per hour not exploitive? If a human being is forced to be employed what is the minimum wage at which they are not a wage slave?
Why barter is better than money.
What happens when someone buys a service for you with tokens which you only accept because they are a medium of exchange and then after refused to exchange with your tokens but still benefited from what you gave them. This problem does not happen with barter if you bartered for something with a use other than bartering so if you are stuck with what you get you still get something useful.
With money in the end people start divorcing the purpose of the action from the intended result because the intended result becomes just to make more money. This in turn results in series of numerous extra needless transactions that are actually useless and increased paperwork to account for money.
Since money can just be taken away it is better to give gifts for a well fed neighbor has less insensitive to assault you for food but one who only gives food in exchange for money may find themselves the victim of robbery resulting in the perceived need to hire security and in the end wasting what money they would have made.
Money created artificial scarcity
Money reduces the incentive for productivity since if all the items produced in the world were produced in double quantity people would not be able to sell them for more money with supply and demand. But without money if the items produced were doubled people could benefit from having more items to use for the purpose they were intended and if duplication of an item creates no gain but is wasteful of resources it need not be produced if it has no use but with money it can be produced if you create a false sense of need or covetousness only to buy an item that later is found useless this is the source of much environmental destruction and wasted time in the world creating unnecessary extra work hours for naught of value.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 26
With money in the end people start divorcing the purpose of the action from the intended result because the intended result becomes just to make more money. This in turn results in series of numerous extra needless transactions that are actually useless and increased paperwork to account for money.
Since money can just be taken away it is better to give gifts for a well fed neighbor has less insensitive to assault you for food but one who only gives food in exchange for money may find themselves the victim of robbery resulting in the perceived need to hire security and in the end wasting what money they would have made.
Money created artificial scarcity
Money reduces the incentive for productivity since if all the items produced in the world were produced in double quantity people would not be able to sell them for more money with supply and demand. But without money if the items produced were doubled people could benefit from having more items to use for the purpose they were intended and if duplication of an item creates no gain but is wasteful of resources it need not be produced if it has no use but with money it can be produced if you create a false sense of need or covetousness only to buy an item that later is found useless this is the source of much environmental destruction and wasted time in the world creating unnecessary extra work hours for naught of value.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 26
Calibrating perception to fit desired results in experiments
In science classes, I am all like the results are not appearing as they are supposed to. And they are like the theory is correct but the equipment needs to be calibrated differently we will have to try again another time. And I am all like what if the theory is only true some of the time but you are convinced it is true all the time so you calibrate the equipment to get the results you want. Also the pictures tend to be fuzzy and involve a lot of mental tweaking to fit the pristine results. Real scientists know the theory should be at best a map for reality and not treated as reality itself other wise you will change what you claim to perceive to get what you are looking for.
Conspiracies do not exist
Although the RICO laws may cover drug trafficking crimes in addition to other more traditional RICO predicate acts such as extortion, blackmail, and racketeering, large-scale and organized drug networks are now commonly prosecuted under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute, also known as the "Kingpin Statute". The CCE laws target only traffickers who are responsible for long-term and elaborate conspiracies, whereas the RICO law covers a variety of organized criminal behaviors.[8]If
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
http://web.archive.org/web/20180526190217/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
If something is a conspiracy theory it is not true because conspiracies do not happen therefore convictions in the United States court
system were false therefore you can not always trust the Government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
http://web.archive.org/web/20180526190217/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
If something is a conspiracy theory it is not true because conspiracies do not happen therefore convictions in the United States court
system were false therefore you can not always trust the Government.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Ancap Socialism?
I support individuals owning their own means of production instead of the government or corporations and think people should not be required to share their personal property or means of production. I support no corporate welfare and no welfare for the poor. I do not think people should be prevented from hiring employees or prevented from working for an employer even though I think it is usually a stupid way to do things. I think hoarding a water monopoly (preventing someone from having the means to get their own water) in order to force someone to work for you can be a violation of the non aggression principle but forcing someone to work for you in order to get water for yourself (ie saying they must work to provide water for you because you refuse to work to provide it for yourself even though you can provide for yourself and using coercion to make them do so under the false guise of justifying such coercion as a necessity to prevent your death) can also be a violation of the non aggression principle. I think forcing people to share their personal property or means of production can be a violation of the non aggression principle. I support collectively owned, personally owned and unowned properties but oppose private property in the sense of governments or corporations making a fraudulent claim of land ownership or ownership of the means of production backed up by force. I think roads should not be private property but collectively owned by the community they are in or unowned so that someone Can not build a road around my house and shoot me for trespassing if I leave my own house. Can I be a socialist anarcho capitalist who is opposed to socialist taxation or a free trade supporting anti Marxist who is a socialist.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 24
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 24
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Should anarchists throw a party for policemen?
Consider this possibility. Do something that police men really appreciate like throw them a party and at that party hand out free anarchist literature and give invitations to anarchist meetings. Sincerely thank them for locking up murderers but point out that in the big picture they do more harm then good by kidnapping people for crimes that they would not use violence to stop someone for committing if they were a civilian because it would violate their conscience if they have one and that if a action is morally wrong it does not become morally right because someone claiming to represent people who never voted the representative into office claims to have made a law on behalf of constituents who disagree with said law.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 22
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 22
Statism is weakness entering the mind
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 22
Statism is weakness and irresponsibility entering the kind and exerting itself through the body influencing surrounding organisms to have misery and suffering.
The state is caused by a sick state of mind.
Statism is like a mental std passed from parent to child
It is like liked intestinal worms that excrete themselves into the surrounding environment duplicating misery on any who eat the spiritually unclean food
It is like a computer virus for mankind
An influenza of bad influence
A stomach bursting alien that creates more predators to hunt mankind
An all pervasive influenza of the mind vomiting bad influence more destructive to humanity as a whole than Ebola
It is like an immunodeficiency disease that halts critical thinking
Yet it is as sweet as lead retarding the next generation to savor it while tainting the previos generation of all their abilities to reproduce creativity as they imagine a magical force will take care of their problems and hallucinate a pleasant but destructive fantasy that takes away their self responsibility and excuses their violent temper tantrums
Statism is like an std fun for some to get but horrible to have
Statism is like a addictive drug that people enjoy using but are to devoid of willpower to leave its present illusion as they go back for another hit when they hear the pain of truth
It is like a loud rock concert enjoyable to the masses but producing deafness to the truth
It is like a rainbow with no pot of gold
A mirage in a desert that misdirects people away from a real source of water and directs the dehydrated to dry sand in a hot and thirsty wilderness
It is a pleasant solution for the obsessive compulsive to take away their stress through the compulsion to act on a delusion
It is the ultimate biological weapon of a sociopath terrorist one that infects the mind but needs no knowledge of chemistry to reproduce
A wolf in sheep's clothing and a razor blade in candy is the teaching of the state
It is like a siren that lures sailors to their death, an Amazon that murders those it reproduces with, a black widow spider and preying Mantis of the soul
Statism is like a vampire that reproduces by sucking out the vital essence of the mind but falls short of bringing immortality and fears the light of truth
Statism is a pyramid scheme made out of nothing good on the apex nor foundation that exploits those below and one day will collapse on those above
Statism is a pleasant lie that when embraced brings down your destruction but only after you passed it down to the next victim
Statism is weakness and irresponsibility entering the kind and exerting itself through the body influencing surrounding organisms to have misery and suffering.
The state is caused by a sick state of mind.
Statism is like a mental std passed from parent to child
It is like liked intestinal worms that excrete themselves into the surrounding environment duplicating misery on any who eat the spiritually unclean food
It is like a computer virus for mankind
An influenza of bad influence
A stomach bursting alien that creates more predators to hunt mankind
An all pervasive influenza of the mind vomiting bad influence more destructive to humanity as a whole than Ebola
It is like an immunodeficiency disease that halts critical thinking
Yet it is as sweet as lead retarding the next generation to savor it while tainting the previos generation of all their abilities to reproduce creativity as they imagine a magical force will take care of their problems and hallucinate a pleasant but destructive fantasy that takes away their self responsibility and excuses their violent temper tantrums
Statism is like an std fun for some to get but horrible to have
Statism is like a addictive drug that people enjoy using but are to devoid of willpower to leave its present illusion as they go back for another hit when they hear the pain of truth
It is like a loud rock concert enjoyable to the masses but producing deafness to the truth
It is like a rainbow with no pot of gold
A mirage in a desert that misdirects people away from a real source of water and directs the dehydrated to dry sand in a hot and thirsty wilderness
It is a pleasant solution for the obsessive compulsive to take away their stress through the compulsion to act on a delusion
It is the ultimate biological weapon of a sociopath terrorist one that infects the mind but needs no knowledge of chemistry to reproduce
A wolf in sheep's clothing and a razor blade in candy is the teaching of the state
It is like a siren that lures sailors to their death, an Amazon that murders those it reproduces with, a black widow spider and preying Mantis of the soul
Statism is like a vampire that reproduces by sucking out the vital essence of the mind but falls short of bringing immortality and fears the light of truth
Statism is a pyramid scheme made out of nothing good on the apex nor foundation that exploits those below and one day will collapse on those above
Statism is a pleasant lie that when embraced brings down your destruction but only after you passed it down to the next victim
Saturday, May 19, 2018
What I speak and write about
How people's belief in authority structures influences them to compromise their own personal moral principles whatsoever they may be
This occurs in
Government
Corporations
Religious institutions
Families
Friendships
Anywhere and in any social institution both accidentally and maliciously
How people becoming afraid to listen to new viewpoints prevents them from researching information to become free from undue influence (aka unethical influence or peer pressure)
How undue influence helps create worldwide poverty
How undue influence fuels addiction based behaviors and unhealthy lifestyle choices in response to distress
How undue influence is responsible for most violence in society
Solutions to make the world and your local community a more peaceful and prosperous place and how to live a healthier lifestyle
Ethical vs unethical ways to share religious beliefs and psychological criteria for what a cult is based on the BITE model by psychologist Steven Hassan
An easy way to get rid of people who pressure you to join religious or other groups if you are not interested but why you should hear their viewpoints anyway
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 20
This occurs in
Government
Corporations
Religious institutions
Families
Friendships
Anywhere and in any social institution both accidentally and maliciously
How people becoming afraid to listen to new viewpoints prevents them from researching information to become free from undue influence (aka unethical influence or peer pressure)
How undue influence helps create worldwide poverty
How undue influence fuels addiction based behaviors and unhealthy lifestyle choices in response to distress
How undue influence is responsible for most violence in society
Solutions to make the world and your local community a more peaceful and prosperous place and how to live a healthier lifestyle
Ethical vs unethical ways to share religious beliefs and psychological criteria for what a cult is based on the BITE model by psychologist Steven Hassan
An easy way to get rid of people who pressure you to join religious or other groups if you are not interested but why you should hear their viewpoints anyway
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 20
Friday, May 18, 2018
Money is fraud
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 18
Money is fraud that creates incentive for a lack of personal responsibility. Money can not help the poor get clean water. If you give them money but no resources that are useful they will still have problems. The only economic truths are physics and chemistry not distribution of money.
Money is a symbol but the movement of materials is a physical thing.
Money is fraud that creates incentive for a lack of personal responsibility. Money can not help the poor get clean water. If you give them money but no resources that are useful they will still have problems. The only economic truths are physics and chemistry not distribution of money.
Money is a symbol but the movement of materials is a physical thing.
The "Truth" about voting
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018
Refutation of the moral arguments against ever voting
Some anarchists argue in opposition to voting because violence is used to enforce laws fabricated into existence through voting, but this argument is problematic because voting can also be used to prevent laws from being fabricated.
If the elections were not rigged and there was a vote on whether or not to kill all humans. I would vote not to kill all humans. Imagine if the proposition to kill all humans passed by 1 vote because you did not vote.
Some might argue that you still should not vote because they do not believe in the legitimacy of the voting process and do not believe people have a moral obligation to follow policies just because people voted to enact policies. The fundamental problem with this argument however is that other people are under undue influence to compromise their moral principles based on the outcome of a vote even if the voting system is illegitimate and is merely a methodology of undue influence. This means that someone under undue influence to use violence to enforce the outcomes of voting may refrain from violence if your vote changes the outcome even if you are unable to persuade them of the moral illegitimacy of determining your behaviour in matters of using violence by the outcome of the voting process.
However if you will not get arrested it maybe more effective in some cases to hold up signs saying laws voted into existence are enforced through violence near voting booths than to actually vote, in other situations this may not be the case. In some cases doing both maybe possible but in other cases doing both maybe problematic.
Although I do not find these arguments against voting to be valid in all cases there maybe some cases where they are valid arguments if for example refraining from voting can influence people to disbelieve in the voting system.
The theoretical probability of voting making a difference
Your vote can never change a loss to a victory but can only effect tie breakers at best.
It takes a minimum of two votes to change a loss to a victory because it takes a minimum of one vote to change a loss to a stalemate and an additional vote to change a stalemate to a victory. It may take more than two votes if the difference in votes between the two options was more than one vote.
The probability that your vote will make a difference in an election in which there are only two options other than a stalemate. Where securing exactly 50% of the votes results in a stalemate and exceeding 50% of the votes or going below 50% of the votes results in the other two options is as follows.
Let k equal the number of voters excluding you who vote the only way you want out of the two possible choices
And therefore k+1 equals the number of voters including you who vote the only way you want out of those two possible choices if you vote
And let n equal the number of voters excluding you who vote
And therefore n + 1 equals the number of voters including you if you vote
p is the probability that a single random individual out of the other voters would have voted the way you would prefer out of the only two options and is assumed to be an independent probability
However if you do vote the probability that you vote for your preference of the only two choices is assumed to be 100% and not necessarily the value p
If you vote the probability of creating a stalemate through your single vote is equal to the probability that
k + 1 = (n+1)/2
Which would make
k = (n-1)/2
And also n = 2k + 1
If k is off from this number by a quantity as small as one vote or even one half a vote (half of a odd number is a fraction) then your vote would not create a stalemate
The probability that refraining from voting would change a stalemate to a loss in your disfavor is equal to the probability that voting would change a loss in your disfavor into a stalemate
If you do vote the probability that voting would change a stalemate into a victory in your favor is equal to the probability that
k = n/2
Which would make n = 2k
If k is off from this number by a quantity as small as one vote or even one half a vote (half of a odd number is a fraction) then your vote would not change a stalemate into a victory.
The probability that refraining from voting would change a victory into a stalemate is equal to the probability that voting would change a stalemate into a victory
The probability that voting would change a loss into a victory is equal to the probability that
k < (n/2)
And
k+1 > (n+1)/2
For example
If n = 5 and k = 2
Then
2 < 2.5 = 5/2
But
2 + 1 = 3 which is not greater than 3 = (5+1)/2
If n = 5 and k = 3 then there already is a victory and voting can not change a loss into a victory
So if 5 other people voted your additional vote could never ever change a loss into a victory as you can see if you try all possible natural number values of k
But what if 6 people voted
2 < 3 = 6/2
But
2 + 1 = 3 is not greater than 3 = 6/2
But if n = 6 and k = 3 you can change a stalemate to a victory but not a loss into a victory
And if n = 6 and k = 4 there already is a victory so you can not change a loss into a victory
To calculate the probability use the method (x = X) at the webpage below for calculating probability as this is a discrete probability function not a continuous function and only uses a single value of x not a range as exceeding the voting requirements by multiple votes will not change the outcome. Input the two values of k solved for above and add the probabilities to get the likelihood that your vote can change from a loss to a stalemate or a stalemate to a victory or do not add them and only select the appropriate single value of k if you are only interested in one of those cases. The lowercase letter x is equivalent to k here. You can also use the formulas in Wikipedia below remember to calculate the probabilities for the single discrete values which will give a very low value and not to use the probabilities for at least a certain number or less than a certain number of votes which would give incorrect answers that are highly inflated.
When plugging factorial into the equations.
Keep in mind 100! Is equal to 9.332622e+157
According to a Google search I just did which I do not know the accuracy of.
This means the numbers in both the numerator and denominator maybe so
large that it is difficult to know if you calculated them correctly even with a
computer due to how they often default to deal with numbers containing
a smaller number of digits.
The numbers used to calculate how unlikely these probabilities are are so large you may have difficulty calculating them.
https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/bin.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20180518125852/https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/bin.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
http://web.archive.org/web/20180518130449/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
Probability of being struck by lightning
http://web.archive.org/web/20180518145627/http://www.actualanalysis.com/llp.htm
https://citp.princeton.edu/research/voting/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802044230/https://citp.princeton.edu/research/voting/
https://web.archive.org/web/20170825144915/https://s3.amazonaws.com/citpsite/publications/ts06full.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20170813132353/https://s3.amazonaws.com/citpsite/publications/ts06EVT.pdf
https://attackthesystem.com/2018/07/18/they-interfered-in-our-election-power-elite-crybabies/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180812224225/https://attackthesystem.com/2018/07/18/they-interfered-in-our-election-power-elite-crybabies/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802035639/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMw2dn6K1oI
Refutation of the moral arguments against ever voting
Some anarchists argue in opposition to voting because violence is used to enforce laws fabricated into existence through voting, but this argument is problematic because voting can also be used to prevent laws from being fabricated.
If the elections were not rigged and there was a vote on whether or not to kill all humans. I would vote not to kill all humans. Imagine if the proposition to kill all humans passed by 1 vote because you did not vote.
Some might argue that you still should not vote because they do not believe in the legitimacy of the voting process and do not believe people have a moral obligation to follow policies just because people voted to enact policies. The fundamental problem with this argument however is that other people are under undue influence to compromise their moral principles based on the outcome of a vote even if the voting system is illegitimate and is merely a methodology of undue influence. This means that someone under undue influence to use violence to enforce the outcomes of voting may refrain from violence if your vote changes the outcome even if you are unable to persuade them of the moral illegitimacy of determining your behaviour in matters of using violence by the outcome of the voting process.
However if you will not get arrested it maybe more effective in some cases to hold up signs saying laws voted into existence are enforced through violence near voting booths than to actually vote, in other situations this may not be the case. In some cases doing both maybe possible but in other cases doing both maybe problematic.
Although I do not find these arguments against voting to be valid in all cases there maybe some cases where they are valid arguments if for example refraining from voting can influence people to disbelieve in the voting system.
The theoretical probability of voting making a difference
Your vote can never change a loss to a victory but can only effect tie breakers at best.
It takes a minimum of two votes to change a loss to a victory because it takes a minimum of one vote to change a loss to a stalemate and an additional vote to change a stalemate to a victory. It may take more than two votes if the difference in votes between the two options was more than one vote.
The probability that your vote will make a difference in an election in which there are only two options other than a stalemate. Where securing exactly 50% of the votes results in a stalemate and exceeding 50% of the votes or going below 50% of the votes results in the other two options is as follows.
Let k equal the number of voters excluding you who vote the only way you want out of the two possible choices
And therefore k+1 equals the number of voters including you who vote the only way you want out of those two possible choices if you vote
And let n equal the number of voters excluding you who vote
And therefore n + 1 equals the number of voters including you if you vote
p is the probability that a single random individual out of the other voters would have voted the way you would prefer out of the only two options and is assumed to be an independent probability
However if you do vote the probability that you vote for your preference of the only two choices is assumed to be 100% and not necessarily the value p
If you vote the probability of creating a stalemate through your single vote is equal to the probability that
k + 1 = (n+1)/2
Which would make
k = (n-1)/2
And also n = 2k + 1
If k is off from this number by a quantity as small as one vote or even one half a vote (half of a odd number is a fraction) then your vote would not create a stalemate
The probability that refraining from voting would change a stalemate to a loss in your disfavor is equal to the probability that voting would change a loss in your disfavor into a stalemate
If you do vote the probability that voting would change a stalemate into a victory in your favor is equal to the probability that
k = n/2
Which would make n = 2k
If k is off from this number by a quantity as small as one vote or even one half a vote (half of a odd number is a fraction) then your vote would not change a stalemate into a victory.
The probability that refraining from voting would change a victory into a stalemate is equal to the probability that voting would change a stalemate into a victory
The probability that voting would change a loss into a victory is equal to the probability that
k < (n/2)
And
k+1 > (n+1)/2
For example
If n = 5 and k = 2
Then
2 < 2.5 = 5/2
But
2 + 1 = 3 which is not greater than 3 = (5+1)/2
If n = 5 and k = 3 then there already is a victory and voting can not change a loss into a victory
So if 5 other people voted your additional vote could never ever change a loss into a victory as you can see if you try all possible natural number values of k
But what if 6 people voted
2 < 3 = 6/2
But
2 + 1 = 3 is not greater than 3 = 6/2
But if n = 6 and k = 3 you can change a stalemate to a victory but not a loss into a victory
And if n = 6 and k = 4 there already is a victory so you can not change a loss into a victory
To calculate the probability use the method (x = X) at the webpage below for calculating probability as this is a discrete probability function not a continuous function and only uses a single value of x not a range as exceeding the voting requirements by multiple votes will not change the outcome. Input the two values of k solved for above and add the probabilities to get the likelihood that your vote can change from a loss to a stalemate or a stalemate to a victory or do not add them and only select the appropriate single value of k if you are only interested in one of those cases. The lowercase letter x is equivalent to k here. You can also use the formulas in Wikipedia below remember to calculate the probabilities for the single discrete values which will give a very low value and not to use the probabilities for at least a certain number or less than a certain number of votes which would give incorrect answers that are highly inflated.
When plugging factorial into the equations.
Keep in mind 100! Is equal to 9.332622e+157
According to a Google search I just did which I do not know the accuracy of.
This means the numbers in both the numerator and denominator maybe so
large that it is difficult to know if you calculated them correctly even with a
computer due to how they often default to deal with numbers containing
a smaller number of digits.
The numbers used to calculate how unlikely these probabilities are are so large you may have difficulty calculating them.
https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/bin.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20180518125852/https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/bin.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
http://web.archive.org/web/20180518130449/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
Probability of being struck by lightning
http://web.archive.org/web/20180518145627/http://www.actualanalysis.com/llp.htm
https://citp.princeton.edu/research/voting/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802044230/https://citp.princeton.edu/research/voting/
https://web.archive.org/web/20170825144915/https://s3.amazonaws.com/citpsite/publications/ts06full.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20170813132353/https://s3.amazonaws.com/citpsite/publications/ts06EVT.pdf
https://attackthesystem.com/2018/07/18/they-interfered-in-our-election-power-elite-crybabies/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180812224225/https://attackthesystem.com/2018/07/18/they-interfered-in-our-election-power-elite-crybabies/
"Man-in-the-Middle" Remote Attack on Diebold Touch-screen Voting Machine by Argonne National Lab
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMw2dn6K1oI
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802035639/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMw2dn6K1oI
FOX News Exposes Princeton / Diebold Vote-Reversal Story
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JESZiLpBLE
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802031218/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JESZiLpBLE
Princeton University Exposes Diebold voting machine flaws
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qtARzh4RSW8
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802031127/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qtARzh4RSW8
Electronic Voting Machine hacked by Computer Scientists (AccuVote-TS)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnUksWt5HQ
http://web.archive.org/web/20161224081652/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnUksWt5HQ&app=desktop
http://web.archive.org/web/20180802041824/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnUksWt5HQ
A Hacker Shows Us How Easy it is To Manipulate Voting Machines
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hvOKWeW_Fog
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802042919/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hvOKWeW_Fog
(why I) Don't Vote
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xqCMJhDCdMs
https://web.archive.org/web/20181119071755/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xqCMJhDCdMs
The Media's Presidential Election Night Hoax - 1 of 4
vaticancatholic.com
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nflPhNdhSXY&list=PLE4B7F2C0CA48B936&index=2&t=0s
http://web.archive.org/web/20200502054552/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nflPhNdhSXY&list=PLE4B7F2C0CA48B936&index=2&t=0s
This Hoax Affects Everyone
vaticancatholic.com
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OynCgwmD-HM
http://web.archive.org/web/20200502055108/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OynCgwmD-HM
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Special Relativity Experiments short
Copyright Carl Janssen 2024 I do not want to delete this content or edit it to remove things but I am not going to finish it. I will copy ...
-
Straight out I do not believe in using numerology to get super powers of tell fortunes of anything like that. I do not believe it works for...
-
Turd Flinging Monkey's Political Trichotomy 1 Freedom 2 Equality 3 Stability Not everyone shares the same values in life when it comes ...
