what i will say though is that the decision to headhunt me actually reflects rather poorly on the institution.

by the mid 00s, it should have been crystal clear that i wasn't somebody that cared very much about this country, or should have been offered any kind of security clearance. and, that's maybe the irony, here - while i'm not working for another government, i can tell you straight up that i wouldn't have any particular allegiance to the canadian government, if they had hired me, and probably would have ended up as a liability, and skipped the country for somewhere warmer at the first chance i got.

imagine there's no countries...

and, no religion, too.

i don't have this patriotic slant that somebody like an edward snowden has; i feel no particular connection to this country, or it's governing institutions, and no particular calling to serve, one way or the other.

so, what somebody else may have interpreted as some kind of patriotic duty just struck me as a boring waste of my time. it wasn't even ideological, really - i mean, i certainly would have some moral problems with working for csis, but i wouldn't even get that far in working out the problem. it's just a job i wouldn't enjoy doing, and i made a decision a long time ago not to spend my life doing jobs i don't want to do.

i'm not even sure that i had explicitly defined myself as an anarchist, yet. 

but, if i didn't want to do it then, nothing has changed, now. i would much rather live on disability and focus on my art than work for csis at whatever pay grade, because it's the job that matters, not the pay check. sorry.

i don't know what they ultimately want or why they're doing what they're doing. it feels exceedingly childish to me. they don't seem to operate with warrants, or present any kind of legal justification for their behaviour. it's just some kind of a game that they're trying to win.

i guess that if i'm dealing with federal agents of some sort - and i don't know if they're american or canadian - then they may be trained to approach what they think of as cyberwarfare using these methods. that is, they may be trained to play cat and mouse like this. but, i'm not a hacker, i'm an artist, and i have no interest in this at all. i'm just annoyed at the amount of time i have to waste on this.

i was headhunted by csis in the mid-00s at one point, and basically told them to fuck off. i just didn't want to work for a security agency. but, these people are trained to interpret the world through the filter of conspiracy theories. in their mind, telling them that i don't want to work for them may be equivalent to admitting i'm working for somebody else.

the last few days have been full of unexpectedly long sleeps, distractions over the primaries and eating far too much. i just wanted to get back to work today...

i've been periodically concerned about illegal entry into my living spaces since about mid-2017. that's when this appears to have started, i think because my analysis of the last american cycle got a little too close to being right for the comfort of whomever is keeping an eye on me.

but, i've been under surveillance for decades, now. 

and, i know they don't think i'm some kind of a spy, for that reason - my file goes back to the 90s. i'm just concerned they're going to use that as an argument.

i don't know how much the arrest in 2018 had to do with this.

just an update on what i think is going on:

1) it seems like my landlord is working for some kind of police agency. he's told me he's a former firefighter, and the front is that he's an auto-mechanic. but, he only seems to actually go to work every once in a while, and he's often gone for weeks at a time - indicating that he gets an awfully large number of holidays, for an auto-mechanic. i don't know if he's working for a local agency or a national one.

2) so, whatever agency it is that's monitoring me just comes down here at will when i'm gone. i have to go out from time to time, meaning i have little to no means of protecting myself, when they have the keys to my front door.

3) they appear to have been previously hacking into my laptop via the bluetooth chip on my wireless keyboard. so, i disabled that, and the system was stable for weeks, until they got down here yesterday when i was gone. i now have to waste my time trying to figure out what they did.

i don't think that moving is going to help much. do i call the cops and go into a witness protection program to protect me from the cops? but, a person can only handle so much invasion of privacy.

i'm going to have to find some way to prove that they're coming in here and work it out from there, once i have.

for now, i want to finish what i'm doing. this is such a fucking waste of my time...

the reason my posts are full of typos since mid-january is that i'm posting from a gmail account that i set up for travelling with, and i can't get into the blogspot interface to correct them from here.

i keep that machine off the internet because i've learned that i have to.

and i simply don't know what they did when i was gone, but i guess if they didn't install some kind of wireless chip then they must have introduced some kind of timer.

and, i knew there was somebody in here the moment i got back because i set my recycle bin up in front of the door as a trip wire, and it was tripped. i was kind of expecting something like this.

all i can do is look for chips, wipe it down and hope it's not persistent.

what i've been doing over the last few weeks is booting into my laptop's hard drive via the production pc, specifically because i can't connect to the internet on that machine (or i couldn't up until they apparently installed some kind of backdoor yesterday when i was out). i would then do the word processing i've been doing on that internetless machine, and upload the files to the internet through the chromebook by copying them over with a usb key.

i was forced to do this because some kind of intelligence agency keeps taking out the boot sector in my windows 7 machine in an apparent attempt to prevent me from posting to the internet, which is beyond retarded. that's never going to work...

then, they went and reinstalled the backdoor on the computer that i'm not using to post with, apparently because they got confused as to how i was continuing to post here even after they installed these back doors.

ugh.

the more they try and shut me down, the louder i'm going to yell. i'm like that. i won't be silenced.

so, what happened?

well, i guess they must have installed some kind of wireless chip in my pc. i have to buy groceries, and i can't bring my tower with me...

but, now what?

i don't see anything in there.

i'm clearing the cmos and i'm going to let the capacitors drain and i'm going to take a very close look over the system board. what do i do if i can't find the chip? i don't know.

but, the idiots installed the chip on my production machine, and i'm posting from my chromebook. the machine they installed the chip on is permanently quarantined from the internet, and has no networking capability by design. i have no intention to ever use it to connect to the internet with - it's just for making music with.

and, again - they have not succeeded in preventing me from posting here, they've just slowed down my documentation process. idiots...

there's a pattern here, though. - my machine consistently crashes whenever i post something insightful here.

you should take that as evidence that i'm on to something.

and, bizarrely, my hard drive just finally crashed, right when i was about to get back to work.

i went out for a few hours yesterday...

i'll have to put this back together, now.

it's far more likely that the pols did something wrong than that the polls were empirically wrong.

does it matter if klobuchar cheated in new hampshire or not?

if you talk to experts on the topic, they often say things like "there are inconsistencies in every election and they balance each other out.". is that the reality here?

well, i need to be clear about what i'm saying and what i'm not.

i am not able to tell you who cheated, why they cheated, whether it made a difference or if they'll do it again. i'm simply able to look at the polls and look at the results and say "something's wrong here". and, unlike everybody else in this society, i'm not accepting the doublethink required to say "i guess the polls were wrong".

again: it is far more likely that somebody cheated than that the polls were this wrong, and the media has shown us the establishment's hand by clearly prepping us for a "klobusurge" (who comes up with this idiocy?). the media is arguing that the electorate changed, but that's just a transparent and bullshit excuse. no, the electorate in new hampshire didn't change that dramatically over the last four years, and if exit polling insists that it did then that exit polling is suspect, itself. proper exit polling should be done by somebody other than the media institutions that need to be checked up on, and the fact that this is not done at all in the united states any more is at the core of the problem i'm drawing attention to - this is not the first time i'm saying this, and won't be the last.

but, i can't tell you that amy klobuchar is personally a nefarious ballot-stuffing no goodnik cheater, and i would think it doubtful that she did the deed herself. i can't tell you that she was aware of it - maybe nobody told her. all i can do is look at the results and tell you they don't add up, and insist that the polls actually probably weren't wrong.

so, does it matter? well, it depends. those 6 delegates probably don't matter. but, if klobuchar's inflated totals come at the death knell of an elizabeth warren then that matters.

i'm not a private investigator, i'm not a prosecutor, i'm not a detective, and i have no insider knowledge - i'm a nerd from canada with a math degree, and i can't answer these questions.

but, the data doesn't add up. and, somebody fudged it.

if i can get an important point across here, it's distrust of the institutions.

you should have a healthy skepticism of what the state tells you, and a healthy distrust of all political parties.

when the polling has somebody at 5-7% and they magically end up with 20% as the media is propping them up, you should be skeptical about what's unfolding in front of you, and you should be questioning the fairness of the process.

that skepticism, that suspension of faith in the system, is important, more important than these specific election results.

you hear this line from politicians all of the time.

"the only poll that matters is the one on election day".

well, no. the polling is important, to ensure the integrity of the process is kept in place. and, when the election contradicts the polls, you should get suspicious - chances are that the polls weren't wrong.

i will make this stand over and over again - when the results of an election do not make sense, i will point fingers and call for an investigation.

the 24 delegates may not be worth it. granted. it's more about momentum.

but, there should be an investigation...

...because this doesn't add up.

it's not like there was a deficit of polling, either.

if there was only one or two low quality polls...

...but there was lots of polling done, and the outcome for this specific candidate is simply not reflected in it, and what that means is that independent measures of popular support do not uphold the results of the election.

and, no, the russians didn't rig it. the dnc rigged it...

turnout in new hampshire is maybe not down by as much as it appeared to be initially. it looks like it's a little lower than 2008, but higher than 2016. so, arguing that bernie didn't get the vote out is only a part of the answer - he didn't, but it only accounts for a part of the discrepancy with the polling.

it makes sense that there would have been some non-ideological voters in 2016 that he couldn't hold in 2020, but that doesn't explain the distribution of votes. the glaring inconsistency isn't bernie's support level, it's klobuchar's. there is absolutely no polling evidence supporting this outcome at all - there's some propaganda coming from corporate media, but when the propaganda predicts the result in contradiction to the polling, that's actually a red flag about the fairness of the results.

when the gut feelings of tv anchors better reflect the outcome than scientific polling, there is something very wrong going on - chances are that the polling wasn't wrong, and chances are that the gut feeling wasn't more right; chances are that the election was rigged, and the tv anchor was in on the process.

my initial attempt to explain the situation by pointing to turnout was an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation for an event that the evidence doesn't seem to support the likelihood of. if that isn't working out either, and it looks like it isn't, then we're left with a glaring contradiction between the polling and the results, which usually suggests a rigged election. the media's overwhelming support of a specific candidate seems to give itself away.

so, i'm changing my analysis - i think that amy klobuchar's numbers were falsified. she was propped up by the media days before, but none of the polling had her higher than 10%. when the polling disagrees with the results by this much, i don't tend to argue that the polling is wrong - i tend to argue that the process is unfair.

it's impossible to know who suffered at the benefit of klobuchar's vote totals being falsified upwards, but the main beneficiary of a split in the moderate vote was bernie sanders, who would not have won otherwise. i can't magically assign all of these votes to buttigieg - he actually outperformed his polling as well, but by an amount that is scientifically quantifiable. he didn't double his polling numbers, he's in a reasonable margin of error. but, you'll note that biden and warren both received 0 delegates.

the party itself might be pushing for generational change...

so, that's my official analysis - the results of the primary deviate so strongly from the polling that preceded it that i am casting doubt on the fairness of the election. and, i've done this more than once, now.

i believe that the results of elections on this continent are routinely falsified, in a way that north americans would naively assume is done in countries like russia, but isn't done here. it can happen here. it does all of the time...

i know what i posted about iowa the other day, but sometimes it takes time to believe the data. this idea of a falsified split to benefit sanders seems crazy, but i need to reiterate the point: when the polling fails to predict the outcome of an election, you should not deduce that the polling was wrong. you should question the fairness of the election. and, in context, the media's clear preference for the actor with the strangest results really clarifies the point.

and, you can only get so far with gramscian conditioning on this point. it's too much to invoke gramsci. it's more like some kind of manchurianism.

it's less complicated to argue it was rigged.