Consulting Oracles in the Old World

 I've been listening to some Dan Carlin podcasts while renovating a laundry room / bathroom.  One point I see repeated quite often in standard approaches to history is how illogical and superstitious it was for ancient leaders to consult oracles and temple priests concerning major state questions.  I think this is just flat out wrong.

Last year I went through Wright's Evolution of God.  While I can't stand his persona and attitudes as expressed on his podcasts, I really really enjoyed this book. I'm not sure why he can get the evolutionary perspective of religion so right in his books and then be so dismissive of its utility in modern contexts, or fail to see the religious aspects of wokeism or today's hyper liberalism.  Oh well.

The big insight from his book was that ancient temples are best seen in terms of modern political think tanks rather than supernatural venues.  They certainly represented community moral meta narratives framed supernaturally. But modern views which separate supernaturalism and religion from governance and politics, are quite frankly not the way old societies worked.

To understand this, think of the way indigenous societies, such as Plains Indians view religious narrative. At a deep level, there is no supernaturalism. It is all meta-narrative designed to teach fundamental, evolutionarily selected lessons in the most efficient way possible. The chaos/unpredictability of Napi reflects the reality of nature's randomness. I suspect, Blackfoot mythology sees this character less in supernatural terms and more in life-lesson terms.

When you apply this cultural evolution logic to ancient temples, what you get is a view that these temples curate certain political and governing perspectives / ideologies much the same way different University based think tanks do today.  If you want a hawkish approach to a certain foreign policy you go to group X based on the academic school of thought.  They will frame your answer nicely, pull in some post facto data to make things look good and presto.  If you wanted to see how opposing views looked on your issue, just select a different group of oracles.  See the end of this post (and the hole series) for some more discussion.

The one thing missing with today's political think tanks is their tight connection to public opinion. Modern think tanks can serve up opinion surveys, but until the rise of the moral activist press, they really have never embodied a group of committed followers in the same way ancient religious cults did.  Now, however, I would suspect "consulting BLM or other wokeish cults" would be very much the same.

Imagine Biden going to BLM to see how supporting Chineses interests in Ethiopia would go over? Are my drone attacks going to be seen as anti-black? You might get an answer like, no, as long as you phrase it this way, and you pay the right sort of price to keep us, the media, and the folks we influence on your side.

This is VERY much like ancient oracles. The main difference is that ancient oracles / temple groups, probably leveraged the poetry of old textual styles more.  Nowdays our speech is very prole. We expect clarity. But imagine if speech from educated folk was expected to be Biblical (or Shakespearan). Matter of fact speech would be too vulgar. Why? In these cases it would be too blunt and afford the regal asker not enough freedom of movement.  In a kingly world, that is bad. Piss off the king, and your cult is in danger. Get too many things wrong and you become a Lincoln Project grifter.  The cultural evolution market selects for a certain level of ambiguity.  Politically, people are coming to the oracle for this.  The king needs to show his people that they sought some outside advice. That outside advice was in the scope of the king's plans. The king took some of that advice to heart and mitigated risk accordingly. The people are now more satisfied that a protected group, who has a fair bit of range to speak to real risks, backs you. This oracle group also pushes some political wheels and some populist wheels. It gives a nice "talking point" narrative for public consumption. This is often framed in meta-narrative mythic form. But, usually the depth of mythic form depends upon the depth of the existential threat facing everyone as a whole.

So, Dan Carlin and others, don't discount the wisdom in old leaders like Leonidas going to the oracle of Delphi before the battle with the Persians. There were probably real political, real populist, and real strategic reasons to do so. Did this consultant see the populace having your back through this? As the 2020 US election shows, media narrative and media control do matter. Knowing just the right narrative to sell can be crucial.  Just think of how Tech Bro's multi-year prep for hate-speech and misinformation checks played out. Who's back would other countries have? That insight is what you pay an oracle for. In the ancient world, the distribution of temples across multiple states gave them significant insight into what was happening on the ground and and elite levels of state.

Lockdown Consequentialism

 Like many places, Toronto is going into a Covid lockdown. While not as dramatic as the Australian Reicht moves, I thought I'd do a simple analysis.

Sounds like they've had 8 Covid deaths today.  Let's assume it would get a factor of 10 worse without the lockdown.  That would be 80 deaths a day.

Let's assume a Toronto level lock-down affects only 2 hours of people's day M-S. You can't go to a movie. You can't hang out with friends. It's a net quality of life bummer of 2 hours a day for your 29h free time week (M-F = 3h, S-S=12h).  For people like me, the psychological burden of authoritarianism is MUCH higher. But, this seems reasonable. Lots of people just watch TV. And many people will just ignore dumb rules (hence Australian authoritarianism).

So with 6 million people in Toronto locked up for a stratified problem, we get 12 million people hours (1.2 x 10^7 )of lock up each day.  A lifespan of 80 years is about 700,000 hours.  80 deaths mean about 6 x 10^7 equivalent hours of life.  That's about a fair trade off.

But, we have to assume that people dying aren't losing a life from age 0. Kids rarely die from Covid (99.997% survivability in 0-19). So I made up a simple spreadsheet based on Canada's demographics and CDC relative death risks by age group and found the total number of early-death-hours based upon an expected lifespan of 80 years.  For 80 deaths I get 1.6 million early-death-hours.  

Thus, the covid lock-down will save 1.6 million early-death-hours each day at a cost of 12 million hours of meaningful lock up.  So your lock up time to loss of time ratio needs to be about 10:1 to break even. That means you would rather lose 1 hour of your life if you got 10 hours of meaningful freedom.

Lock-downs are close to a washout.  They don't really save any more life-time than they cost.  All you get out of them is a sense that you're doing something at the cost of absolute destruction of 

• the economy, 
• people's enjoyment of life, 
• trust in government, 
• and decrease in social support net (due to deficit costs).  

What probably happens is we have to work more to pay for our lockdowns (due to increase tax rates). Therefore the lock down hours of life saved are probably more than made up for by the loss of life-freedom-hours and tax-workload-hours.

I'll take Liberty and a Stratified response please.....

Overboard? People's bans on politicians

 A decent number of people are in favour of lockdowns. As I've mentioned before, there is definitely a small bias in human nature that makes moves toward castes and caste based authoritarianism more adaptive than not. It's the evolutionary selection arrow for larger polities.

Democracy curtails this trend in interesting ways. It puts the majority of the people in charge of leadership decisions.  In most cases this still results in a creep toward European style state paternalism. But, in the US, it resulted in a resistance to big state power.

Covid emergency powers (which never seem to be going away) supplant constitutional rights for individual liberty. If you want to lock someone down because they are sick - fine. But if you want to pre-emptively lock them down because you're looking at things at a population level, not individual level, then not-fine.

So I look at this tiny signal with a bit more interest than normal.

We know that facebook-twitter-google ban people for their identity and political/social views. We know gofund-me and monitary service providers ban people for wrongthink too (at least wrongthinkg that energizes a mob based upon journalistic threats like "please comment on your support for X's white supremacy views). We know that BLM and political machines try to ban people for wrongthink.  That's why it's interesting to see the populace thinking about doing the same thing.

Remember, during the American revolution, loyalists and patriots were banned from commerce and public social venues based upon their identity.  I suspect this is a fairly good way for the populace to let politicians know when they've crossed a line.

But, It will of course result in the hardening of political-identity groups. That seems to be the natural trajectory of things now. Something as historically simple as a minor plague may reveal more about tribalization and weak empire splits than we could have ever imagined.

Minimal Counter-Intuitiveness & Voter "fraud" Debate

 I was just going through one of the Cultural Evolution Society's podcasts on Cognitive Biases in Folklore.

They don't raise many points you wouldn't already have heard from Scott Atran's In God We Trust. But, they do mention that it is stories as a whole and not elements within a story upon which cultural selection for minimal counter-intuitiveness operates.

That has some implications for the current voter fraud debate.

Right now we're getting tonnes of "just so" voter fraud and voting extra-legality (back dated time stamps, observer exclusion, 100% Biden vote batches, programmed hardware bias, etc.).  Each one is a bit hard to believe, but is certainly plausible. But, as a whole, people around me tend to think the sum of all of it is definitely conspiracy theory land.

The narrative as a whole has too many slightly counter-intuitive ideas.

If the cultural evolution theory is right, what should happen is that the narrative should change so that only a few slightly counter-intuitive ideas are present.  Thus the narrative should predictably evolve into something like "systemic voting bias which slightly favours Biden".  This seems to be happening.

But, what is also interesting, is that along this way, you should have voters thinking either:

- All this is just too coincidental to be true. Trump is grasping at straws to stay in power.  This could occur due to post hoc rationalization (I hate Trump, or I don't want to disbelieve that all media are fairly fake). Or it could occur due to a rational assessment of the probability of so many "just so" stories all being true.  This reflects analysis at the elemental level.

-All this is just too coincidental to be true. Biden must really have pulled some strings to play as unfair as he thought Trump would. After all, what could people who believe Trump's literally Hitler justify as fair. This could occur due post hoc bias. It could also occur due to rational assessment of the evidence (each actor has a slight probability to do something within their control to slightly influence results, none of which is extra-ordinarily unusual. Or, the big guy & Hillary said "unleash the hounds" within their political machines). This reflects selection at the story level.

This leaves one with two competing stories. Trump is an aspiring dictator. Biden reflects or enabled systemic extra-legality. Both are slightly counter-intuitive to swing people. What I expect we should see for detail is that the elements told in each retelling then get switched based on the audience one talks to. After all, believers within one camp wouldn't find either of these narratives hard to believe. For the story to be meme-orable, you'd need a better level of counter-intuitiveness.

In religion this is "putting your pearl's before swine" logic. It reflects the ideas in the side-bar on lynch-pin signalling.

2+2=5

The other month James Lindsay had a twitter feud with the 2+2=5 group. For those not up on that discourse, it's basically Critical Theory saying everything is relative. That tool is now being applied in the harder sciences. Part of that is to get easy papers published (academia always needs a new kick for job progression). 

Part of the thinking is accurate. Not all operators or things are always understood the same way. That's why assumptions are always baked into discourse. One argument is that things like addition operators and numbers are well defined. Therefore, if you're using slightly different logic, it's on you to explain your assumptions, not upon others to infer them. This is what separates white supremacy from Critical Theory.

But, the power dynamic boils down to being able to say 2+2=5 and being free from critique. It's what 1984 discussed with respect to the ultimate goals of newspeak - being able to eliminate any ties language has to objectivity. The narrative matters more than objectivity. Why? We've already got enough objectivity.

It's hard not to see the media's reaction to the Biden laptop (there is no evidence it gives) or the censorship of election issues in the same light.  For instance, twitter is now banning Benford Law links (the standard? statistical analysis used to look for fraud, including voter fraud). Or, perhaps more accurately, they're banning specific links which tie Benford's law to voter fraud and then specifically cite the objective data on swing state votes.

It's not just that saying "2+2=4" is getting you banned off twitter, youtube or facebook.  It's that discussion must say 2+2=5 and saying 2+2=4 is offensive, divisive and aligns you with white supremacy.

Is that just the natural trap that cultish utopian movements fall into? "Say the name of God". Just recognize our power/legitimacy (in an Orwellian way).  It seems like once you can't say objective facts because they convey the wrong meta-narrative balance, you're in trouble. Once too many people start believing 2+2=4, then the overlords will say, then we have a problem. They're trying to curate the right level of detachment from reality. And, that's scary.

War Game: Is the Chicanery going as planned?

Remember the election war game white paper from this summer that most people dismissed as conspiracy theory thinking? (see one report). Is it going as planned?

I think so.

If I remember, the talking points around its analysis suggested the key for things for the Dems was to gain narrative control early. This would pressure state legislatures not to disrupt things. Media control was used to ensure Trump couldn't declare early victory. Slow counting was key to enable this. Then media control would declare Biden victory.  One weak point was how to solidify this without seeming duplicitous. Getting foreign leaders to congratulate early seems to be a very smart innovation since the white paper came out.

The war game's likely scenario was that some electors would not be able to validate the election. That would leave things up to the house. 

I suspect that's where we'll wind up. 

I think that is the best and fairest case anyway. Republicans might not like it. But it seems the most honest. Then the Trumpist move is to stoke Pelosi's ego so it happens. Then, from the Republican side, Biden is castigated. 

As far as the Supreme court goes. If things get to them with respect to uncertified electors, they may decide they need to nip election chicanery in the bud. The easiest way to do that is to enable uncertified electors, trusting the House not to upset the Dem's wise move of getting things called early. Plus, this protects Deep State institutions and corruptions from Trump's laptop enabled criminal probe.

The main chip Trump has to play here is the special prosecutor chip. If this scenario buys Trump off from burning down "corrupt" elite actors & institutions with a vindictive special prosecutor, Trump MIGHT go for it. He goes down as less of a loser, at the cost of unfulfilled revenge.

I think that deal would work for him. He's taking the bet that state apparati will resist any criminal investigation so much it probably won't happen. The media will play cover for that. Therefore the safe bet is to avoid tearing the country down more, and get it out in the open that "extra-legal" means were used. This then forces government strucutres to come out and decide how to enfrancise voters via mail-in or equivalent means while figuring out how to keep just the right number of extra late counted votes from going to your side.

Here's the logic that keeps things from an early shutdown - provided of course the war game plan to demoralize Trump does not succeed. If I remember, that seemed to be a key point mentioned in the war game play.

link for this excellent twitter thread statistical analysis

link

Rabbit Hole

 Looks like I'm heading down the rabbit hole in election conspiracies.  I stumbled on the Penssylvania GOP site and it was better than rando social media (which is infinitely better than any big media). Then I went to Barne's Law, as his experience (doing?) and litigating fraud, including in Gore Florida. That brought me to some technical analysis, which being a mathematician I enjoyed.

That's when I got mad.  P-values of 10^-147       yes -147      yes!!!!!

Here are some threads

• Shylock Holmes
• Elefant Respecter

And to think social media will throttle all this to the nth degree - because "narrative" & "illegitimate use" by conspiracy theorist nuts.

Optics

 Most election fraud stories can be explained non-conspiratorially. The issue seems to be the perfect storm of:

• Tech giant censorship
• Biden has his son's jailtime riding on this
• Biden has his legacy riding on this
• Hillary will do anything for revenge (and to avoid Clinton foundation investigation)
• The media, via the Hunter laptop, has shown they will deny the sun is yellow to avoid giving anything to Trump
• The media and many elites are now a de-facto quasi-religion who don't want their sacred utopian ideals repudiated
• Media has no credibility
• Mail in voting obviously enables electioneering (all votes matter rationalization or Ilhan Omar styled pay-outs)
• One opponent is literally considered Hitler
• People are willing to riot, burn and beat to not give space to Trumpists
• China, Iran, and many other world powers obviously prefer Biden to Trump
• Trump is gunning to expose Obama and lots of power players
• The intelligence agencies are about to get exposed via Flynn's return to head of the NSA of DNI
• Guilianni was likely going to replace Barr to "get some blood" and pull a RICO on Antifa-BLM and whichever politicians were colluding them to RICO standards.

The major problem though, is, while each of these are conspiracy theory type stuff, the throttling of info means none of it can be discussed rationally.

The logic is that enabling rational discussion last election is what enabled Trump to play the dynamics of populism. The establishment vowed that should never happen again.  But what that means is channels like this one, with a few POTENTIALLY disturbing issues, are siloed and prevent a nexus of verification from occuring.

That's bad. It also makes for back reactionary dynamics.  Watch most any historical movie about tribal groups fighting off an imperial power. It's always the prevention of expression or culture that is the rallying cry. Stories rely on that for a reason....

So look at this to see what's throttled. Some of it is obviously conspiratorial low percentage issues. But, so was Epstein Island and Weinstein, and Flynn frame job, and.....     That's the dynamics at play. 

https://twitter.com/PhillyGOP

My now "Restricted" blog

 Looks like this blog is now in a restricted mode on Parler. It wasn't yesterday. 

https://parler.com/profile/Cgoble72

Not sure why. I checked various google blacklist tools to see if academic discussion about election dynamics from an evolutionary perspective are now banned (by the a very open social media site). Nothing.

I still come up in google search terms. So this is very interesting... Not sure what I did to anger the algorithms.

(And yes, I did test posting links to other blogger blogs)

The Ethos of Inclusion: Forces its Formalization via Lawfare?

The sanest way to think of Trump's lawfare w voter "fraud" is to think of it as forcing out some uniform rules for future elections. 

• When does voting start and end?  The moment you write your ballot or the moment it is recieved? Or anytime up until the hegemony gets what it wants because "all votes matter"
• What type of ID do we really want?  None? All persona's are legal? Exclusionary ID like photo ID like most Western countries?
• How do you balance security against "every vote matters" inclusion?
• And most importantly, what role is voter harvesting going to play? And how does it get safeguarded?

The last point is the most salient, but hardest to confront through lawfare.  One side will deny its existence. But as Blogojevich's recent Fox interview, and Ilhan Omar's project Veritas expose with the Somali community - it is alive and well and certainly played a pivotal role in Trump's loss (though apparently hard to find on youtube even with direct search terms...)

But just making it illegal isn't going to change much. It is a default modus operandi.  Whoever doesn't play with it won't survive for long.  This reality has been hammered home to the politically naive and inexperienced Trump.

Results support the Democratic narrative that there are huge numbers of voters for whom the old process doesn't enfrancise.  How do you accommodate their political interests without guaranteeing more "extra legal stuff" that, for many, is now part of the ethos of inclusion?

 

Evolutionary Transitions & Political Trajectory Wells

"All votes matter" vs "Conservative rule of law"

This post could have been called: Why we're seeing the "All votes matter" ethoses pushing ballot counting one way while "Conservative rule of law" is pushing it another. 

Written another way, it comes out as

• "doing the right thing by people" by way of  "if it just saves one life" heart-string-tugs / villainization
• save the system by giving up what seems compassionate for the moment, but which kills boundary maintenance & system trust (by way exploitive manipulation guard erosion). 

In practice, the rhetoric of white supremacist (intersectional logic) emerges as essential for understanding what is happening.  See James Lyndsay's twitter or New Discourses to see why.  

THE HEARTLESS TRAP

The "all votes matter" logic is impossibly hard to refute: at least within large populations where individuals are largely insulated from the direct effects of their aggregated individual decisions. For instance "all votes matter logic", where you always have to stretch to accommodate just one more thing/item/person, is not a general feature of aboriginal populations. These groups have great intra-support networks. And individuals within them go to great extents to avoid greed & grift. But, if you break norms there is absolutely no slack given. The tribe does no sacrifice itself for individuals who violate (logical or irrational) survival norms. They are EXTREMELY conservative.

THE INESCAPABLE PROGRESSIVE VECTOR

The rhetorical position of "all lives matter", represented by ballot counting norm changes & open border logic, is an inescapable vector in human groups.

This means, in the long run, you really can never beat the State (as Trump has found out). The State will always tend to grift and enlargement. This follows Evolutionary Transition literature. 

According to this literature, systems are selected for:

1. dependency increases (eg big gov, social state, we riot if you don't support us)
2. role specialization (eg elite classes, sacred identities)
3. coordination (eg media, state collusion)
4. conflict minimization (eg the application of law which "solves" noisy voices, authoritarianism, selective prosecution, special rules for key organs)

To expect these tendencies not to be expressed in government means fighting the inescapable current of human evolution. That states like revolutionary France, revolutionary US, etc. have been able to do this for a time is rare. 

1800's European critiques of the survivability of Jeffersonian democracy are apt. The US was always a rare blip.

Error

 Well it looks like I blew the election prediction. I figured Trump would sneak by in PA, WI and maybe MI for a 290 - 300 take.  Now it looks like even GA may flip blue.

Both sides' fall-back states are getting the late votes they need that just cause them to eek by. It's a game of he who counts last gets to count just right.  In this PA is king, and mail-in voting from big urbans is your savior.  See the Barnes video (he seems well used to the chicanery played in Bush-Gore Florida).

The real issue is obviously, should late votes count (rule of law) or does every vote matter. The latter matches the Black Lives Matter ethos so perfectly, I suspect it reflects the major moral fault line facing the US (and other countries).

Do you go so progressive that everything matters that no one can be left out or not made to achieve equal outcomes? Or, do you stay hard nosed, keeping tight arbitrary norms, which inevitably exclude things in "racialized" ways.

THE BIOLOGY 

As I've said before, globalization, specifically pan-nationalism, reflects one deep seated biological tendency now being probed by groups. It is operationalized by an out-group focussed, no-borders societal approach. But his increases the likelyhood of severe gaming (freeloading). If norms can't keep up with things, the adaptiveness of your group implodes.

That, is what people fear about the US right now. In order to win an election, the blue side opened things up so much, so quickly, in such a norm breaking way, it was going to be near impossible for faith in rule of law to stay. The red side's fight against systemic bias in the system is similarly burning up social cohesion capital.

So while I think Hillary certainly used her dirty political machine to nail Trump, and while I think corrupt Biden decided to play in the gutter to hit Trump and save his son (& political elites) from jail, I think it wouldn't matter who won or who didn't. The US is now functionally ungovernable, and the structural forces that led it to be that way are increasing and really can't be tamped down.

CONCLUSION

So while I would have preferred a purge of the deep state, more legs to the current Israeli peace movement, and a removal of woke religion from public institutions, it seems like the deep-state's supporting edifices have finally proved too much for Trump.  The odds were never in his favour. Covid and the leverage it gave for voting norm shifts proved too much for non-elite populism to overcome. Big tech thumbs were just enough to edge it out. Trump's achille's heel was always getting too many enemies. But it was also his strategic strength. It caused everyone to fire all their guns. Sometimes the superposition proves just too much.

Weekend Violence

 Other than a house contested election, this looks to be about the worst scenario possible for election violence.

I got surprised that Biden took Arizona so easily. Some republicans still think mail-in and absentee ballots may make that a pre-mature call, but I doubt it.

That leaves Pennsylvania as the key to the whole election. They allow late voting and don't require signature matching.  That's a rife combo for fraud.  In addition, Pittsburg is a known hotspot for election shenanigans. 

That leaves both camps ready to come out this weekend at the same time in their "shows of commitment". That spells disaster!  I doubt things will be sorted out by then. But the legal theatrics will have peaked. That means my model for civil unrest (R celebrations peaking Tuesday and Wed, D protests peaking on the weekend) is wrong.  You'll get competing demonstrations and violence will ensue.

Add to this, the Supreme court's decision under Roberts to steer away from uniform voter decisions to favour state autonomy via some convoluted reasoning between which non-legislative rule changes are and aren't allowed under emergency Covid measures, and you're going to end up with a Supreme Court deciding the whole election via its call on Pennsylvania.

Decisions like that which the populace sees are fairly arbitrary and politicized do not bode well for civil stability.

It is going to get nasty as duelling protests gradually ramp up. The rate at which violence emerges all depends on how much control Democratic grass root activists have over BLM and Antifa. I think the dragon is out of the box on this one.

Why are Pollsters Wrong?

Why pollsters this year were as wrong as last year is going to be source of endless punditry. This will be doubly true over the next few weeks as news networks struggle to avoid uncomfortable riot coverage.

Some people push a DNC-media collusion narrative with respect to systemic polling bias. I just don't buy that. While I'm sure some "news" agencies purposefully push misleading polls in order to grab attention or sell a narrative, I really doubt the aggregate of polling institutions do this.

Rather, it seems likely pollster's just haven't kept up with the demographic shifts that track the moral changes now occurring in political-group identity.  An example in simpler terms may be apt. The left's intersectionalism now means they're the party of "racists" (classical racists at least). See California prop #16.  This has shifted a lot of classical liberals over into the Trump-if-I-must camp. Similarly law and order has shifted a lot of inner city minorities into non-traditional political camps. And, the very wealthy have shifted from Republican to Democrats. Never Trump neo-con's are the obvious example.

But, this just begs the deeper question - why haven't pollsters recognized, what are too many, very obvious social shifts? It's like the woke left that can't even conceptualize how they're the new racists and how the dynamics of BLM supremacy mirrors KKK supremacy. It's the revolutionists blind-side. After most any revolution, the revolutionists become basically indistinguishable from those they overthrew.  Why?

This feels like a General Systems complexity question (see Bathalamy's research from the 1930's - 1960's).

My suspicion is that pollsters just can't control for the levels of tribal group migration/realignment we're now seeing. More importantly, they aren't trying to figure it out.  Because of this they're functionally blind with respect to the changes that actually matter for the levels of precision they're after.

Nate Silver's tunnel vision epitomizes this. They just don't feel how far the world has shifted. And, I would guess there is a sizeable systemic bias in the friends networks. They are just too isolated amongst liberal elite circles to really sense the magnitude of what is happening in the deplorable and red-pill castes.

Nov 3 week riots: Predictions

Early polling suggests a Trump win. Campaign actions hint at an electoral blowout (think - Minnesota is in play!).

So how will the Left's commitment to protest intersect with the Right's growing jubilance and rally energy?

Social media and legacy media are certain to tamp down any proclamations of victory. But, I suspect, electorally, things will be pretty clear. While many swing states will have a razor thin margin that mail in votes and post dated fraud could flip, I suspect Trumpers are going to ignore all priestly advice and are going to go CRAZY in the street.

I don't think one can underestimate the enthusiasm that gets generated when a persecuted group overcomes all odds and all institutional pressure against them and wins. Here are the adaptive energizers:

• lots of public physical assaults against Trump voters
• Trump yard sign vandalism
• obvious social media throttling and censorship against Trumpists (& centrists)
• the Biden corruption vs Russia hoax journalism differentials
• the McCarthyist blackballing and deplatforming of mainstream conservatism
• the violent ANTIFA - BLM "protests" & their "non-violent" property destruction
• the rise of racial supremacy (KKK level progressive intersectionalism)
• the meta-narrative-breaking rise of minority-based Trump groups (blacks for Trump, gays for Trump)
• etc

So, I think Trumpists will head out Tues and Wed for YUGE celebrations. If Trump rallies are drawing 50k+ then the celebrations are going to be huge. People locked down by Corona are going to want to get together. The Trump energy is very much based on "positive" energy as opposed to ANTIFA styled "tear it down" energy. There are going to be street parties galore, especially in locked-down blue states. It will be a big FU to ppl like Whitmore.

The suburban mom group that ANTIFA-BLM relies on for coverage will likely hold off until the election is called by official channels. I don't think the masses will have the energy necessary for early protests. They will be despondent because of the fake poll lies. And, social media has been wise enough to try and forestall confrontation by setting structural throttles for conclusive election declarations. Biden karens seem highly likely to follow the advice of their moral priests and secular shamans.

That means their protest energy should peak closer to the weekend. The media will have time to properly spin "the steal". And social media should have had time to rip out broker nodes on conservative social networks.

That leaves Proud Boy types and Antifa types squaring off on the weekend, with suburban moms flushing out Antifa numbers. That spells bad news for the more violent Trumpers. They are likely to get really hurt. Progressives angst is going to be huge. And, this group of Trump aligned nationalists have shown they won't back down and suffer public space to be fully controlled by those who refuse to acknowledge rule-of-law (and its associated social contact) expectations.

But, maybe, Trump enthusiasm will continue into the weekend. I doubt it. I suspect they think "rule of law has spoken", and will feel no need to rub victory in.

That leaves defence of public space as the only likely reactionary dynamic. I suspect many will give law & order a chance here. I suspect they expect Trump to pull in the national guard and "take the gloves off". That's kind of stupid since most of that power is at the state level. But, nobody said ppl are rational....

... that leaves a worse reactionary backlash as all but inevitable as violent weekend rioting fails to get quelled. It gets even worse as mainstream media figures express solidarity with "intensely peaceful protests".

But I don't think you'll see many rightwing militias coming out to do police's jobs for them. I suspect you'll see a growing COLD anger. You'll certainly have a number of proud boy groups getting nasty. But, conservatives tend to be slow to anger. Hence you'll see growing background energization on the right until it suddenly breaks in two to four years.  

That's why I continue to think an assassination based entry into civil war by rightwing extremists is the most likely vector for civil war. The exception I've always predicted is if in 2024 a reactionary wokeist gets into power. Then the right will go down the road of unbridled mob violence as 2nd A rights get trampled and UK styled authoritarianism gets enacted..."for people's own safety".