>>11803609 (lb)

Science fiction was always cabal tainted. I do not know how much the giants like Clarke, Asimov, Dick or Heinlein actually knew and understood, but the cabal certainly loved their dystopian predictions for mankind.

In my opinion it is entirely possible that Clarke had no idea, but you can clearly see a descent into pushing cabal narratives (e.g., global warming, the need for a one world government, identity politics etc) once Gentry Lee (NASA) became a co-author.

Also look up Asimov's son and his alleged collection of child rape footage and Elon Musk's partner, who is an "artist" and painted a picture with pedo symbols and other satanic stuff in it called "Seldon Crisis" which is a reference to Asimov's Foundation series.

Hubbard who hung out with Crowley and Parsons was also a science fiction writer.

The only one who stands out is Heinlein in my opinion. He was a staunch libertarian and despised cabals and scheming.

>>11804038

Yes, I do concur. PKD does not belong in the cabal camp as well. I heard rumors that he was actually a victim of some sort of LSD / MKUltra experiment.

I have a constitutional question. If I'm correct, many articles about the Electoral College process are wrong on an important point.

Many people are discussing "what if the election gets thrown to the House, with a vote by state delegations?" This is probably inspired by the possibility of some state's election being so fubar that no electors are appointed from that state, and as a result no candidate gets to 270 Electoral College votes. But I don't think that's how it works!

Normally there are 538 electors, 50% of that is 269, so 270 is a winning majority (while 269-269 is a tie thrown to the House under the 12th Amendment.) But if no one is appointed to some Electoral College seats, so there are fewer than 538 Electors actually appointed, what happens? (This might happen if results are never certified, a state legislature intervenes and refuses to appoint electors, SCOTUS strikes down a state's appointment of electors, etc.)

I've seen articles touching on this subject in recent weeks, for example exploring what happens if no electors are appointed from Pennsylvania, usually seen as necessary for Trump to reach 270. (I think Trump will exceed 270 even disregarding Pennsylvania, but that's not important for this thought experiment and legal question.)

In every article I've seen, it's stated as fact that if no candidate reaches 270 Electoral College votes, the election is thrown to the House. I believe that is incorrect. From the 12th Amendment, the Electoral College winning threshold is defined as "a majority of the whole number of electors APPOINTED".

"… the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states …"

To lay out a specific scenario: Suppose Trump flips Georgia and Michigan, and Pennsylvania doesn't appoint anyone to their Electoral College seats. Then, the Electoral College vote would be Trump 264, Biden 254. No candidate reaches 270, but Trump has a majority of the 518 Electors actually appointed. From a plain reading of the 12th Amendment, it seems that Trump would be elected President by the Electoral College, and the election would NOT be thrown to the House.

This seems pretty important. I can't think of ANY normal scenario where this election gets thrown to the House, despite all the talk about this possibility!

The mathematics: Suppose all appointed electors are expected to vote for one of two major party candidates (as is the case in 2020), e.g. there is no three-way split in which candidates win states. Suppose there are no "faithless electors" who vote for someone besides Trump or Biden, so these are the only two candidates receiving votes in the Electoral College. And suppose every appointed elector casts a ballot. Then, the ONLY way the election would be thrown to the House is if there is a tie. If every appointed elector casts a ballot for one of two candidates, and one of these candidates gets more Electoral College votes than the other, they'll have a majority of the whole number of electors appointed. I think the only way the election gets thrown to the House is if (1) neither candidate receives 270 Electoral College votes, AND (2) either there is an exact tie, or some of the appointed electors bound to the candidate expected to win the Electoral College majority eliminate that winning majority by either not voting at all, or voting for someone else.

Most importantly, I think elections don't get thrown to the House, even if neither candidate reaches 270 Electoral College votes, if this is sub-270 result for the leading candidate is due to some states not appointing electors.

If this is accurate, it would be nice if articles laying out "what if" scenarios would read the Constitution correctly. If this is not accurate, I'd like to know why!

>>11804203

You are correct that if the normal election process fails, state legislatures can appoint electors. But there is also the possibility that the state legislatures also fail to appoint electors, or the state's appointments are invalidated by SCOTUS for some reason (such as their appointment being based on a certification later invalidated by an equal protection challenge). I think these are the kinds of scenarios that came up in the articles I've seen - where some states don't actually vote in the Electoral College at all.

>>11804106

All of them had to a certain degree cabal themes in their writings. But I would not jump to the conclusion that they were necessarily insiders.

Many of them were staunch "rationalists" and atheists and this mindset begets certain viewpoints which were/are beneficial to push the cabal agenda.

You can interpret "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Friday" differently and view it as "The Great Awakening" against a ruthless system of control. All I know is that Heinlein was rather a strict anti-communist in his remarks. But he did involve ideas of polygamy and matriarchy and the notion of breeding or creating a new kind of man (referred to as "supermen") in some of his writings.

The question is whether those science fiction writers were knowingly pushing these narratives to advance the cabal's agenda or rather warning us of the dangers of the looming technocracy. Ray Bradbury called himself an anti-science-fiction writer, if I am not mistaken. I remember an interview in which he said his stories and novels should be viewed as a warning. I would put Heinlein and PKD in the same category, even though I do agree that some ideas put forth by them are disturbing.

I would also say Micheal Crichton belongs in this camp.