Critical Election Theory

     Ever notice how “Critical Theory” isn’t selectively applied and wondered how it would go if applied to some non-woke preconceived conclusion?

     Thanks to Twitter user James Lindsay, you can!

“People who deny any evidence of election fraud exhibit a rhetorical strategy known as ‘election fragility,’ which is deployed when one knows there is evidence of massive election fraud and a lack of political stamina and political humility necessary to cope with that fact.

“People denying election fraud often benefit from the election having been stolen. This makes them complicit in the fraud. Their fraud complicity is a feature of their political privilege. They deny fraud because they can’t have their political comfort disrupted.

“Election fraud is systemic. It is the ordinary state of affairs, not an aberration, in elections. The question is not ‘did election fraud take place?’ but ‘how did fraud manifest in this election?’ Anything that maintains the ruling class’s political comfort is suspect.

“Election fraud isn’t diminished by reforms; it is merely hidden, thus making it harder to detect and more pernicious. Election reforms reproduce fraud in new ways because they are only undertaken when it’s in the best interests of the fraudsters to appear to be reforming things.

“Asking for proof of election fraud denies the lived experience of fraud of those defrauded by it. Proof is the standard and tool of the fraudster. Counterstories told by the defrauded are unjustly excluded from evidence as a form of epistemic oppression and political violence.

“People who benefit from a stolen election are motivated to maintain the fraudulent election’s status quo. They cannot bear having their election equilibrium disturbed or disrupted and will lash out in election fragility when this equilibrium is threatened.

“People who benefit from election fraud are also socialized into a culture of accepting fraudulent elections that benefit them. Though they very rarely speak of it openly, there is a political contract in place between them that leads them to accept fraudulent results uncritically

“The election status quo is comfortable for most fraudsters by virtue of the fact that it maintains their political advantage. They will therefore remain silent about election fraud and deny that it is widespread, systemic, and damaging to the lives of the defrauded.

“Election fraud silence is violence.

“Election trustworthiness is a social construct. It is constructed by those who have been granted the power to authenticate elections, and those people are chosen primarily by people who win elections and who benefit from election fraud.

“People who are defrauded by election fraud are disenfranchised and politically oppressed. This provides them with insights that political and fraudster privilege blind those with fraud complicity to. Election fragility is therefore a form of willful ignorance, or ignore-ance.

“Fraudulent elections are elections!

“Illegal ballots are ballots!

“Switched votes are votes!

“It’s 👏 not 👏 defrauded 👏 people’s 👏 job 👏 to 👏 educate 👏 you 👏 about 👏 election 👏 fraud. 👏

“It’s not enough not to commit election fraud, you have to be actively anti-election fraud. There is no neutral. We’ll never end systemic election fraud until we’re actively anti-election fraud. Anti-election fraud begins with confession.

“I define a ‘typical voter’ as someone who benefits from election fraud while doubting election fraud and claiming to be against it—a voter who “gets it” or “isn’t complicit.” These typical voters are not anti-election fraud and do the most daily damage to defrauded voters.

“Many people are appearing in the comments under the tweets in this thread votesplaining that there’s no evidence of electoral fraud. This is just their election fragility showing.”

     Give this man a professorship now!

Tweet