Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Black Box Voting

It is indeed bizarre, but it seems to me that the beliefs concerning democratic governance with which we boomers grew up have to be radically modified in the face of their widespread subversion.

The information given on this site - see 'websites' list in sidebar - concerning the GEMS voting machines in use in the USA is simply breathtaking.

These devices employ a 'fractional vote' counting system that allows profiling of communities and individuals, the allocation of favourable or unfavourable quotas to candidates and the setting of the 'value' of the individual vote at any fraction less than one and less than two. The GEMS voting system, which processes 25% of all votes cast in the USA, appears to be one of the worst designed systems possible; that is, if the powers that be really want the democratic process - or at least the 'one-person-one-vote' principle - to be preserved. It's so badly designed that the 'flaws' in it that allow interference cannot be an accident; perhaps that's its whole point. The 'flaws' appear to be design features, since they are written into the source code. These 'flaws' make auditing impossible since the 'settings' that allow fractional voting, profiling and quota allocations can be permanently hidden from detection immediately upon the close of voting and no-one will ever know what the fix was.

I imagine that Bernie Sanders is well aware of this possibility, but the scope for subverting the electoral process cuts two ways in a two-party state. The difficulty is in knowing who is going to apply the fix. It's down to local electoral services to do this and they are under the control of one or other of the parties in different states. I guess Bernie had no clear idea that the DNC was favouring Hillary until the Wikileaks revelations came out and proved this. The fact that even after these revelations Bernie endorsed Hillary, and that no-one in the mainstream media bothered to ask about the voting machines convinces me that the press is largely under the control of the undemocratic forces that influence the choice of both Democratic and Republican pre-selected candidates. The primaries thus risked being a charade, as many said at the time, and America got the Democratic candidate that the hidden powers of the CFR, Bilderberg, Wall Street, global companies, outfits such as the Soros 'Open Society' movement and so on... had already selected.

But as always, the 'best laid plans of mice and men' went somewhat awry with the surprise arrival of Trump, who as a complete outsider, non-politician, was not keyed into these various kingmaking organisations and rode a wave of popular irritation and discontent at the effects of globalisation and the clout of unelected agencies. This support of a popular movement was evident in Bernie Sanders's case, too, but while for him it was insufficient, for Trump it was such a significant groundswell, that it was more than enough to neutralise the subversion in areas where the Republicans had the power to interfere with the GEMS system and both select and elect the Republican candidate favoured by the above and similar organisations. Hillary is in the pocket of the undemocratic globalizing forces; Trump is not. This simple fact is perhaps the main reason why I consider Trump to be a thousand times better for America and the world than Hillary Clinton. There are other reasons, but they are all related to this central issue, because it goes to the heart of the current global corruption of democracy by powerful and illiberal unelected bodies throughout the world.

Trump is clearly a loose canon and as such a risky unknown quantity. I don't like him. But he is far from stupid, as his canny use of the primary elections showed, and has the interests of the American people at heart, as he understands them. He also speaks plainly; and given the subversion of language by the semantic manipulations of the politically correct, who have rendered meaningless words such as 'racism', this is reassuring. Despite the press vapourings, Trump is not a racist. A Trump presidency would signal a breaking of the anti-democratic link between the USA and global financial and industrial complexes.

I think he is aware of the globalists' plans to crash the American economy in the coming and more disastrous phase 2 of the 2008 upset; and he knows that Hillary is in on this, in on the plans for the creation of a 'new economic (perhaps cashless) world order'. He is aware of the plans of the Democratic party to foment racial tensions in the interests of creating problems of social unrest that can then be 'solved' by more measures along the lines of the Patriot Act, conducing to enhanced internal state control. He is aware that the Republican party, that has lost its way completely, is largely on board with these anti-democratic designs. He is aware of the plans enshrined in numerous international trade agreements such as TTIP and NAFTA to empower multinational companies over nation states and of the hand of the Democratic party in these. I've heard him talking of all of these matters in interviews not screened or aired in the mainstream media, whose aim is simply to discredit and demonize him. So his opinions on these issues incline me to support him.

I'm not inclined to heed the opinion of Trump that is promoted by the mainstream media. If you listen to the mainstream media, then electing Hillary in preference to Trump is simply a no-brainer and the alternative unthinkable. But Trump has done no more than commit multiple sins against political correctness and robustly spoken his mind. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is a known liar of an almost pathological kind. She is a member of a crime syndicate quite as nefarious as the Mafia and far more powerful by virtue of its vast political influence. She is guilty of fraud on a breathtaking scale, notably in using the offices of the state for corrupt purposes; and she and her criminal associates have more than likely been guilty of commissioning the assassination - both figurative and literal - of opponents. She is in very poor health and a presidency held by her would probably pass very rapidly to her VP who is a fully bought-up Washington insider and creature of global finance. A Hillary presidency would mean at least four more years of Obamaism, that is to say four, probably eight, more years of the destabilising domestic and foreign policies - designed to reduce the national elected power of the USA while increasing that of the unelected global interests centered there - that have created the discontent in the USA that led to the Trump phenomenon in the first place.

So while I am not a supporter of Trump, I am even less of a supporter of Hillary.There is no other choice: either Trump or Hillary; and the latter would represent further progress of the globalist agenda. I think that a Trump presidency could at least be as positive as the Reagan presidency and at worst far less damaging than a continuation of Obamaism. This latter doctrine is inspired and fuelled by the political theory of Saul Alinsky as re-interpreted by George Soros. Soros is obsessed - as are Obama and Hillary - with creating an unelected global political authority that abolishes national identities and borders, that mixes peoples throughout the world into a bewildered, directionless herd of enslavable sheep, who can be easily bullied or cajoled into accepting political manipulation and transformation into consumer robots.

I think the globalist agenda is proceeding apace, faster than we realise, and the pushback is even becoming evident in certain parts of the EU, a globalist project if ever there was one. The recent ruling by the European Commission concerning the unpaid the Irish tax of the Apple behemoth is in my opinion a major crack in the globalist agenda at the heart of the EU. Apple knew that the Irish state was not powerful enough to oppose it and behaved as globalist bullies do with sticks and carrots. Margarethe Vestager has understood which way the wind is blowing and realised that only the EU was powerful enough to oppose the globalists; and I think we can expect to see more of this.

Trump is part of the same popular anti-globalist irritation that led to Brexit. The narrative that tries to argue that all of this discontent is driven by small-minded issues such as 'racism' is simply idiotic. I feel this strongly: the anti-democratic agenda is now in plain sight; and the opening of my eyes has dealt a death blow to my lifelong tendency to vote left-wing. This doesn't make me right-wing, since these distinctions are rapidly going out of the window. Soros is overtly and 'proudly' left-wing; and for me, that's enough to make me give up any loyalty to this particular label for ever, since this 'left-wingness' does not mean a genuinely liberal concern with human welfare and social justice, but rather an obsession with ideology and social control. Dreamers such as Jeremy Corbyn in the UK may think that Soros is one of them; but their ideas are fifty years out of date and Soros's globalist conceptions of what is left-wing are a world away from their  quaintly antique vision of society and the future. Theirs is a blast from the past: his is the real future, unless he is defeated by the people.

The talk in the USA at the moment, in influential circles, about putting the election in November under the control of Homeland Security gives a strong hint about the manner in which this election may be stolen: a Homeland Security official, fiddling with the GEMS machines at the behest of the White House, for reasons of 'national security' is now a real possibility. The Obama administration and the insiders of the Republican party are so intent on stopping Trump that this Homeland Security wheeze may well be the way the achieve their aim. Severing the close link between the White House and global interests is that unthinkable!