The unthinkable in election outcomes

Then: this man HAD to win…  Now: this man HAD to lose…

In the world of concerted narrative maintenance, there are times when certain “democratic” outcomes are simply unacceptable to sponsors of the public social narrative. In recent decades the narrative in the West has been owned by political establishments, academia, entertainers and major media outlets. In an earlier post I outlined how the election of Donald Trump caught these consensus powers off guard and the unthinkable happened. In this post I demonstrate how the narrative was protected and the correct outcome guaranteed in a major election 26 years ago, and relate it to the 2020 election in the US as the game now stands.

Then: South Africa 1994 – Nelson Mandela, the man who had to win.

The world’s narrative could envisage only one possible or acceptable outcome of the first “democratic” elections in South Africa – Nelson Mandela as the president of a “liberated” nation. For this to happen, his party had to win the elections (considered a no-brainer) and the persecuted anti-apartheid icon would emerge in true storybook fashion to the acclaim of all except the hated fascists and racists who had kept his people oppressed. If ever there was an unimaginable outcome it would be an election result where Mandela did not emerge as the winner and leader.

Although even the conservative South African media declined to seriously question the credibility of this ubiquitous axiom, for those who looked closer at the reality on the ground things were never that clear-cut. The constitutional deal between the previous rulers and the other parties opted for proportional representation at national level and for each of the 9 provinces. Members of national and provincial parties would therefore not appear on the ballots but only their parties – the winners would consist of the relevant proportions of each “party list” as put together by each party executive’s central body.

The numbers invoked for the various interests at the end of the constitution-drawing process were never that sanguine for Mandela’s ANC party. For it to win convincingly some extraordinary precautions and interventions would be needed. At the beginning of 1994 the unofficial outlook was something like this:

1. 5 million White folk who would never vote for the ANC. That party has never received even as much as 2% of White support in the last quarter century.
2. 4 to 5 million Coloured (mixed race) folk, of whom many were sympathetic to the ANC but who had their own political concerns, notably that to the ANC they were not considered “Black enough.” Most of the Coloureds lived in the Western Cape province which had never been historically a homeland for Bantu African folk.
3. 1 million Indian people, living mainly in Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN)province. Many of their elite, especially among the small fraction that were Muslim, had been ANC activists-  but the Hindu majority had their own cultural and political interests and candidates.
4. 7 million or more Zulu folk, again primarily from Kwa-Zulu Natal, who at that stage looked upon the ANC as the party of their arch historical and cultural enemies, the Xhosa people.
5. Among the peri-urban Non-Zulu Black townships support for the ANC varied from as low as 40% to 70%.
6. Among the rural tribal folk, party support depended on the predilections of the chief and tribal elders who instructed their people how to vote.
7. A hodge-podge of other players were expected to gain considerable voter support, notably some of the leaders of the original “homelands” such as Transkei and Bophuthatswana.
8. Many evangelical and Pentecostal Black Africans were critical of the Marxist and totalitarian flavour of the ANC.

All of this implied that for the ANC to win, and for Mandela to fulfil the fairy-tale story-line of the establishment’s local and international sponsors, was not a mathematical given. Indeed, the most likely outcome would be a proportion of the vote somewhat south of 50% for the tri-partite alliance of the trade unions, the ANC and the Communist Party that was standing as “Mandela’s party”, and therefore a coalition government. Mandela would probably emerge as leader of this, but not the all-conquering liberation hero the fairy-tale demanded. To prevent this unthinkable outcome, the Marxist ANC employed many of the pre-election and election tactics and strategies from the playbook that had already established Robert Mugabe in their northern neighbour Zimbabwe. These included:

1. Aggressive insistence that the ANC be viewed as the only credible representative of Black South Africans. The media corporations and foreign powers complied enthusiastically with this, and the ANC’s readiness to back it up by employing violence and disruption made it a very fruitful tactic.
2. Intimidation, especially in the townships, aimed at ensuring compliance from what they viewed as a dangerously dithering populace. The knock on the door at night by a couple of bruisers with a tyre, a can of petrol and a box of matches in their hands turned out to be the most effective tactic in this regard, with thousands “necklaced” in this way to encourage the others.
3. Marginalisation in the minds of the public and in the negotiation process of all other Black dissenters, especially the Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party of Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. While the sponsors of the narrative endorsed this whole-heartedly, on the ground it produced the most serious violence in the process. The Zulu’s in KZN and their enclaves in the peri-urban townships were the last ones to meekly submit to ANC violence and intimidation, and much of the rage of that period still echoes today in the all-to-common political assassinations. Predictably this was reported in the media as the ANC the heroes and the Zulus the knaves.
4. ANC dominance in the appointment of election commissions, staffing and counting regardless of their local support.

During the elections the expected tactics came into play, all of them reported by the compliant media as of little importance, if reported at all. The most obvious of these was the pause in evening reporting of the on-going counting “because of a software issue”, when the returns showed less than convincing support for the ANC. Once the “software” problem had been fixed the ANC magically emerged from the lost hours as a clear leader, a position it never lost.

Then there was the problem of time: an extra day was added, during which the ANC’s lead increased significantly. Ballot boxes were “disappeared” and “discovered” fortuitously according to the needs of the ANC. Objective observers were driven away from polling stations and counting houses, and mysterious truckloads of ballots were moved under cover of darkness to where they were required. There was no credible voters roll; all inhabitants of a country in which there were already millions of illegal migrants were permitted to vote, ID cards and temporary voter cards (where required) were openly for sale, and the opportunity to vote as many times as you wished was clearly available. Busloads of voters were shipped from place to place, especially into KZN and Western Cape provinces where ANC support was thin. To all of this very obvious strategy the sponsors of the establishment’s preferred narrative turned a blind eye.

Mandela won… well obviously, it could not be left to chance that he might lose. The rest is history, as per requirements.

Now:  USA 2020 – Donald Trump, the man who could never be allowed to win

The triumph of Donald Trump in 2016 came as a seismic shock to the established interests. Entertainers cursed, academics raged, students and news anchors cried their little eyes out, and even his own party’s established figures – especially those he had defeated in the primaries – could find little to celebrate. But it did not take long for the establishment’s major players to swear revenge and that this president’s reign would be a “blip in history” – as the executives of Google assured their broken-hearted staff.

As the nation proceeded toward the election of 2020, it became absolutely clear how firm the resolve of the establishment powers were. The large media corporations and the social media giants blatantly took the gloves off and ran the opposition as a concerted programme to ensure the unthinkable could not happen again. Once Biden was established in his basement and micro-managed by his keepers, nothing was left to change – most especially not allowing the candidate out to mess it all up (as Obama shamelessly declared he inevitably would do.) While the media’s reporting on the 2 candidates was “Never anything good about Trump, never anything bad about Biden”, Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter choreographed their efforts to silence not just every pro-Trump voice but every possibly significant conservative voice. The narrative was also twisted in blatant fashion, with the president who had early blocked travel between US and China and offered every assistance to State governors re equipment and other resources featuring as the eternal villain, while the governor of the State with the highest per capita death toll was lauded as a model leader. And Biden in his basement depicted the wise head who would resolve all the “problems” Trump had caused.

To all this the entertainers and the academics gave their assent. The finger – indeed the whole hand, fist and upper body – was firmly on the scale, but could the villain still pull off the impossible despite this handicap?

Indeed, were it not for the fortuitous virus and the opportunity it presented for “benevolent” State governors to destroy the Trumpian economy, it probably would have been a sure thing. However, the belt and braces approach of the ANC in South Africa was now brought into play – C-19 allowed the States who knew how to manipulate to institute vote-by-mail, and now not only were the narrators in control but also the mathematicians. The way was open for the production of as many votes as Joe Biden would need. As in South Africa, when the vote count did not proceed as ordered, in numerous states a pause was called and hey presto, when counting resumed hours later 95% of the mail-in votes and the additionally discovered ballot boxes, suitcases, truckloads and other useful documents gave Basement Joe all the votes he needed. President Trump gained 10 million votes more than his 2016 count, but Joe the Silent easily managed to top that, receiving added votes as the requirements of the count required. Those of us who watched from South Africa and remembered 1994 knew when the counting stopped that first night, that the fix was in – this was a man who could not be allowed to win. It was unthinkable, and it took every play in the handbook to make sure things happened as they should.

It is not yet sure what will come of legal challenges to the election results. Probably nothing. Republican voters in Georgia may not even turn out to vote in two crucial senate votes, since 89% of that party’s supporters believe the presidential election was stolen from them, and will be again. How can we hope to win if the Democrats can manufacture as many votes as we manage to lead by….

The future path of the world is sure:  the notion of heeding the voice of the people, of fair and unbiased news and social media, is no longer of concern to those who know better than we do. Will Boris cave on Brexit? Possibly… because for those who manipulate and defraud in the election process, or ignore its outcome, there is no penalty. The creators and sponsors of the only permitted narrative will remake the “truth” to their own purposes, without the slightest heed for the wishes of the masses that have no taste for their vision of the future.

The Christian response to the cynicism of this age and the blunt wielding of power by the “elite” who know so much better than we do can be based on the life story of the Carpenter of Nazareth. Here was a man that cynical establishment of the day could not allow to win… Roman governor, Jewish Council and violent revolutionaries all “gained their lives” when He lost his. Only eternity will bring in the final results.