Ian Fantom – Feb 13, 2021
- Organised Subversion
- Who are the Transition Integrity Project people?
- Claims of ‘no voter fraud’
- Widespread historical voter fraud
- Legal Challenges to the US Election Results
- Giuliani’s Background in Election Fraud Investigations
- Smartmatic and Dominion
- Storming of the Capitol
- Alice and the Money Tree
- The Trilateral Commission
- Pseudo-epidemics and Litigation in Berlin
- Merial in Nanchang: “This is like a real-life experiment for us”
- ‘Everyone Knows’ – but they don’t
Since the US Presidential Election on 3 November 2020 the BBC has been putting it about nonstop in its national news broadcasts that Donald Trump has been “trying” to claim that “somehow” the election was rigged, “without providing evidence”. Then theŭ started saying he was making “false claims”, etc. By saying “trying to claim” rather than “claiming” they are strongly suggesting that he has not been successful in making such a claim, when the BBC knows full well that he had actually been making such a claim in the US law courts. The word “somehow” suggests that the BBC have no idea of how a US election could possibly be rigged, when they know full well that election rigging has long been believed to be a problem in the US, using well-known methods. But the real whopper is in the phrase “without any evidence”, and equivalent phrases, when they know that evidence has been provided to the law courts, and that it has been outlined in an early press conference by Donald Trump’s legal advisor, Rudi Giuliani. The Establishment media have been increasingly using emotionally loaded words, such as ‘deluded’ when referring to Donald Trump’s attempts to raise legal objections to election irregularites. Such mendacity in the BBC has been constant and consistent, in every BBC news broadcast mentioning Donald Trump’s challenge to the election results that I am aware of hearing in their news broadcasts during that period. This is not an occasional badly worded statement, but a concerted effort by the state broadcasters to support their own favoured candidate, Joe Biden. If this were about a UK election, then I think some may be raising issues of contempt of court.
It’s not just the BBC; Channel 4 Television is supposed to be a ‘public-service broadcasting’ body, too. I turned to them over a decade ago when I latched on to state propaganda on the BBC, but now they seem just as bad as the BBC. The rest of the British Big Media seem to take a similar line, though there may be a little bit of truth being revealed by intrepid reporters here and there. It’s similar in the US, but the US never seems to be as uniform as the British, or at least the English.
Why would the British Big Media even bother? What people in the UK believe about the election challenge wasn’t going to change much as to the outcome in the US. However, they were putting the same message out on their world service, and there would obviously be some feedback to the US. But not only that: they seemed to be propagandising the British public in preparation for whatever follows. This isn’t about Donald Trump; it’s about the BBC and Big Media. They have been putting it about that Donald Trump has been subverting the democratic process in the US by challenging the result, whereas in reality the legal remedies are part of that democratic process in the US, and the BBC has been subverting that process.
1. Organised Subversion
The almost universal condemnation of Donald Trump in the Establishment media following the US elections can be understood in terms of the Transition Integrity Project (TIP). Their website states:
The Transition Integrity Project was a short-term project launched by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman to conduct scenario-based exercises aimed at identifying potential risks to the integrity of the November 3, 2020 election and transition process.
Our goal was to help ensure that the 2020 presidential election is free, fair and peaceful, in order to ensure that the outcome is accepted by all as legitimate. By identifying potential risks to the election and the transition, we hope to encourage actions that will shore up the integrity of the process.
In June 2020 we ran a series of scenario simulations exploring what could possibly go wrong around the election, and what could be done to mitigate the identified risks. On August 3, 2020, we published a report summarizing our findings.
Their report is headed ‘Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition’. In a footnote the report states: “Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman launched the Transition Integrity Project in December 2019 to focus on identifying and mitigating threats to democracy and administrative continuity in the period between Election Day and Inauguration. TIP has received advice and input from dozens of experts representing both major political parties. TIP is directed by Zoe Hudson. Inquires can be sent email@example.com”.
Wouldn’t you expect that any group that was seriously trying to avoid a disrupted presidential election would be working to ensure that election observers would be put in place, and that they would not be obstructed, that any suspicion of fraud would be properly dealt with in the courts, and that there would be free and fair reporting of this in the media? After all, those are the sorts of things we would expect when UN or US observers go to other countries – the so-called ‘banana republics’ – to try to ensure free and fair elections. But in this report by the TIP there’s none of that. It’s all based on the idea that if there are complaints of election fraud coming from Donald Trump, then it’s all Trump’s fault, and so complaints have to be suppressed.
The report’s Executive Summary outlines four specific recommendations – though I’m not sure to whom they would be addressed, other than to ‘Americans’. They are: 1) Plan for a contested election; 2) Focus on readiness in the states, providing political support for a complete and accurate count ; 3) Address the two biggest threats head on: lies about “voter fraud” and escalating violence; 4) Anticipate a rocky administrative transition.
The third point is a big give-away. The summary of this states: “Voting fraud is virtually non-existent, but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politically mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose. The potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms”. There are three dubious assertions here, and they make no attempt to justify them. I think none of them is true. The fact that they are working towards blocking any attempt at investigating possible election fraud whether or not there is evidence of fraud I think speaks for itself.
2. Who are the Transition Integrity Project people?
I followed up the names of the three people mentioned as being behind TIP and found them all to have links to the Globalist agenda.
Zoe Hudson in 2007 was one of thirteen members of staff at the Globalization Reform Project of George Soros’s Open Society Policy Center. Until June 2013, she was a senior policy analyst at the Open Society Foundations, according to their website. In August 2020 she was one of the speakers at a fundraising event ‘Planning for and Responding to Election Crises’ organised by Democracy Fundraisers Network. The event description runs: “Join DFN donors to discuss the potential and importance of planning for various election-related crises, and to highlight specific actions donors can take to prevent and/or respond to crises. We’ll be hearing from Zoe Hudson of the Transition Integrity Project, Angela Peoples of Fight Back Table, Peter Colavito of Social & Economic Justice Leaders Project, and Jenny Flanagan of the Trusted Elections Fund on their efforts to identify, prepare for, and respond to threats to the integrity of the election results or potential abuse of power during a transition”. Their Resources page has a link to ‘Election 2020: Democracy Funders React to a Historic Contest’. “Inside Philanthropy speaks with funders about their reactions to the 2020 elections and plans for continued work in the democracy field”, they say. When I click on the link I get blocked by an invitation to pay a subscription. However, in the HTML source code I read: “For funders who leaned into democracy work this year, this is a time for some celebration, and a sobering look at the path ahead”. That’s enough!
Rosa Brooks is a professor of Law and Policy at Georgetown University, with academic qualifications from Harvard, Oxford and Yale. Her area of expertise is “Human Rights Law, International Law, National Security, Military, War and Peace”. She is also a Senior Fellow at the America Foundation, previously known as the ‘New America Foundation. According to Influence Watch, “In 2009, at the start of the Obama administration, the think tank began getting federal contracts with the State Department to help development wireless networks for dissidents in Iran, Syria, Libya, and Cuba. This raised concerns among alumni of the orga”. So it seems that whereas they were previously disrupting regimes in Iran, Syria, Libya, and Cuba, some of their personnel may now be doing the same thing in the US. They received a million dollar donation from the Rockefeller Foundation. According to Influence Watch, “Between 1999 and 2018, New America had grants from foundations totaling $170 million. The group has also reported taking in substantial contributions from a number of corporations and foreign governments. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Ford Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Family Foundation, Foundation to Promote Open Society, and JPMorgan Chase Foundation are all among the substantial contributors to New America”. A list of known donors that they provide includes the Jennifer and Jonathan Allan Soros Foundation, whose Chairman, Jonathan Soros – the third son of George Soros – is a Board member of the America Foundation.
Rosa Brooks is also the author of a book ‘How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon’. At least she seems to be practising what she is preaching.
Nils Gilman is the Vice President of Programs at the Berggruen Institute, with special expertise in Climate Change, Globalization & Geopolitics and International Security. The Berggruen Institute’s website states that it “was established in 2010 to develop foundational ideas about how to reshape political and social institutions in the face of these great transformations”. They have programmes on: 1) The Transformations of the Human; 2) The Future of Capitalism; 3) The Future of Democracy; 4) Globalization and Geopolitics, and they have a China Centre in Beijing. On The Future of Democracy they say: “The Future of Democracy program seeks to develop new institutions of governance designed for the current age. A decade after the global recession undermined confidence in the global financial system, a political crisis no less transformative is shaking democracies across the world”. They don’t say anything about investigating the causes of the global recession, or the current crisis; in the context they must surely be talking about global governance.
Their Board of Directors includes Google co-founder Eric Schmidt. Their 171-strong Network includes Carl Bildt (co-chair: European Council on Foreign Relations), Tony Blair (Leader of Breaking the Climate Deadlock Initiative, and former UK Prime Minister), Gordon Brown (Former UK Prime Minister, and United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education), Jacques Delors (Founding President, Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute, and former President of the European Commission), Mario Monti (former Prime Minister of Italy, Chairman of the Council for the Future of Europe, European chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and member of the European Commission), Elon Musk (Chairman & CEO, Tesla & SpaceX), Romano Prodi (Former Italian Prime Minister, former President of the European Commission, a former member of the Council for the Future of Europe), Condoleezza Rice (former US Secretary of State), Kevin Rudd (former Australian Prime Minister), Nicolas Sarkozy (Former President of France),
Eric E. Schmidt (Former CEO and Chairman, Google/Co-founder, Schmidt Futures, and Blue Ribbon Commission, which “will employ lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to improve and modernize state systems for the future.”), Gerhard Schröder (Former German Chancellor, and Member of the European Advisory Council of the Rothschild Group), Joseph E. Stiglitz (Nobel Laureate, Economic Sciences), and Guy Verhofstadt (Former Belgian Prime Minister, and Brexit Coordinator for the European Parliament).
Nils Gilman is a historian, who has written books on ‘Modernisation Theory’ and Globalisation’.
3. Claims of ‘no voter fraud’
The statement “Voting fraud is virtually non-existent, but Trump lies about it”, made in the ‘Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition’ report, needs some examining, because it is exactly that belief that can enable voting fraud. It sounds as if that may be a reference to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, titled ‘THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S VOTER FRAUD SCANDAL: LESSONS’. It’s undated, which seems amiss for an academic institution, but the PDF file meta data gives 2 January 2020, 23:19:27 GMT. The Introduction begins:
As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump made extraordinary and unfounded claims about widespread voter fraud, declaring that the election was “rigged” against him and even suggesting that he would not accept the outcome if he lost. Remarkably, even after winning the election, the president-elect has continued to pound at the issue. On November 27, he tweeted of “serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California” and said that millions of people voted illegally. Election officials, politicians from both major parties, and others have rightly criticized these baseless claims.
The only justification they give for such loaded language is a CNN report headed ‘Officials blast Trump vote fraud claims, GOP [Republican Party] wants to “move on”’. This is hearsay evidence at best. Again, this seems amiss for an academic report.
The body of the report begins:
During the George W. Bush administration, the prosecution of voter fraud was a top priority of the Department of Justice. In 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft created the Department-wide Voting Access and Integrity Initiative, which aggressively investigated and pursued allegations of voter fraud.
Again, they don’t reference any source document, but merely a press release put out by the Department of Justice. It is headed ‘Prepared Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft: Voting Integrity Symposium’ and dated October 8, 2002. The text is preceeded by: “(Note: The Attorney General Often Deviates From Prepared Remarks)”. In the same paragraph they wrote:
A new voting-related initiative in 2005 required that “all components of the Department place a high priority on the investigation and prosecution of election fraud.” But after five years of intensive focus on voter fraud, the Department of Justice found little evidence of widespread abuse. A New York Times report in 2007 found that only about 120 people were charged and 86 were convicted of election-related crimes during this period, despite hundreds of millions of votes being cast. Virtually every study since then has found that the rate of voter fraud is vanishingly rare. Nonetheless, during that era, the pursuit of fraud, regardless of the facts, was the justification for a range of inappropriate actions that resulted in scandal at the Justice Department.
So they are making out a case that allegations of widespread voter fraud are fallacious without actually linking to any source documents. I had read the New York Times article of 2007, and that didn’t give any source document either, though it did give various examples of apparent small-scale voter fraud. We are left wondering what ‘little evidence of widespread abuse’ means. Does it mean ‘some evidence’?
We are left non-the-wiser as to whether perhaps the reason that large-scale voter fraud was not found may have been that they weren’t looking for it. In any case, lack of evidence in one case would not be valid legal evidence in another case. So what sort of academic report is this?
4. Widespread historical voter fraud
I didn’t find any such report as the one they describe, but the New York Times article referred to a report produced the previous year, stating, “A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable”. Indeed the EAC’s report ‘Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study’, dated December 2006, stated “It is clear from this review that there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud in elections as well as what constitute the most common acts of fraud or intimidation”. This was a paper study of previous studies, but it did not give specific results or any analysis. Much of that report was preoccupied with definitions, rather than investigating what actually happened. Of course, a proper investigation into potential fraud in a specific election must have access to reports by observers, as well as access to ballot data before it is destroyed. The claim that there is little evidence of large-scale fraud would seem questionable in the light of this report by the US Election Assistance Commission that there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of electoral fraud.
As regards postal votes, Donald Trump wrote on 26 May 2020 in Facebook:
There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!
One of the editors of Off-Guardian – hardly a Trump supporter – agreed with that in an article headed ‘Donald Trump is completely right about mail-in ballots: The President’s claim that postal votes are easily rigged is widely supported by historical precedent’. He describes cases of reported fraud in both the UK and the US. He also draws attention to a push for more postal ballotting by some politicians in the UK and the US. However, in the UK one MP, Steve Baker, stated, “I believe the overwhelming majority of my constituents would be shocked if they knew the extent of corrupt election practices and voter fraud which happen each time there is an election”. That was posted on 20 December 2019, yet a year later the BBC was putting out derogatory adjectives to do with Donald Trump merely for challenging the election procedures in the US election of November 2020. I think the vast majority of Brits would be shocked if they knew the extent of corrupt election practices by the BBC.
5. Legal Challenges to the US Election Results
On 19 November 2020 Rudy Giuliani and lawyers Sydney Powell and Jenna Ellis, representing President Donald Trump’s campaign outlined their case that the presidential election was so deeply flawed in several key states that the results should be overturned in the president’s favour. Rudi Giuliani said there was a pattern to the alleged irregularities in key states that suggested, he said, a “plan from a centralised place” to commit voter fraud in cities controlled by Democrats. He said widespread adoption of vote-by-mail had allowed Democrats to take big-city corruption practices nationwide. “They picked the places where they could get away with it”. A list of nine allegations is given:
- Observers were allegedly prevented from watching mail-in ballots being opened.
- Allegedly unequal application of the law in Democratic counties.
- Voters allegedly arrived at the polls to discover other people had voted for them.
- Election officials were allegedly told not to look for defects in ballots, and to backdate ballots.
- Ballots casting votes for Joe Biden and no other candidates were allegedly run several times through machines.
- Absentee ballots were accepted in Wisconsin without being applied for first.
- There were allegedly ‘overvotes’, with some precincts allegedly recording more voters than residents, among other problems.
- Voting machines and software are allegedly owned by companies with ties to the Venezuelan regime and to left-wing donor George Soros.
- The Constitution provides a process for electing a president if the vote is corrupted.
The article also stated:
Ellis [one of the lawyers] argued that the media, had usurped the power to declare the winner of the election. She made the point, citing Federalist No. 68, that the constitutional process of selecting a president had procedural safeguards against corruption and foreign influence.
Giuliani said that the campaign believed that enough votes were flawed — more than double the margins between Biden and Trump in key states — that the president had a path to victory.
Giuliani presented evidence in the form of sworn affidavits, citing two and noting that the campaign had many more from private individuals.
He noted that several lawsuits that had been dismissed had been filed by private individuals, not the campaign directly. He said lawsuits might be filed in Arizona, and that the campaign was also examining irregularities in New Mexico and Virginia, though he said he did not think there were enough disputed votes in the latter.
Giuliani also took on the media, arguing that they had provided misleading information and condoned threats against Trump’s legal team.
The last point was illustrated by Rudi Giuliani’s answer to the first of the journalists’ questions, whose answer I quote here in full:
I know that this is a lot of information that we’ve given you, probably because we’re frustrated with what we keep reading and hearing in the censored press, which is that we have no evidence, we have no specifics, we have no backup of what we’re saying, and you largely ignore the affidavits that are filed. Whether you agree or disagree with an affidavit, it’s evidence. You can’t say – I mean you’re just lying to the American people when you say there’s no evidence. Sydney [Powel] was giving you information that comes from afidavits from other people that are given under oath. I was explaining things to you from affidavits that come from other people. American citizens, who swear under oath that they saw one hundred thousand ballots come in, and that they were all for Joe Biden, and that – I should point out now that Sydney has spoken, that those happened just around the time the Dominion or Smartmatic called a halt to the election, and then you can also trace it with a very big spike in the vote count at exactly that time – right up – so what we’re telling you is supported by evidence, and we’re going to have to present because of the procedures that exist, according to the different voting laws of the different states. For example, you asked us about Wisconsin. We have to first create a contest in Wisconsin before we can move to bringing a fulsome federal lawsuit. The contest, from everything I can see, is going to overturn the vote, because it’s going to show somewhere around 100 000 illegal ballots in two counties that Biden carried by 75-80% – and you know how close Wisconsin is, and what I’m talking about is the absentee ballots for which there were no applications, and that’s not just a small matter. The reason for the application, and the reason that keeping all these things is precisely to avoid what the Democrats did in this election, which is to misuse the absentee ballot process, and the mail-in process, in order to cheat. So they really cheated in two respects. They cheated with the machines. Instead of asking me are we going to bring a lawsuit in Wisconsin, which we will if we have to, you should have asked me – and you should be more astounded by the fact that our votes are counted in Germany and in Spain by a company owned by affiliates of Chavez and Maduro. Did you ever believe that was true? Did any of you here believe that that was possible? Of course it’s not, of course it shouldn’t be possible. I don’t know if we’re going to have time to develop all that in time to fulfill the requirements of all these cases. We have enough evidence without that to overturn this election. We have it from the affidavits of American citizens, but that’s a matter of national security that we’re talking about now. It’s a very, very serious matter of national security. Please don’t make light of it. And don’t act like you knew it. Don’t act like it isn’t a surprise. If that’s not a headline tomorrow then you don’t know what a headline is. There isn’t a single person in this country that would have believed that we have states that are stupid enough to have our vote sent out of this country. There you couldn’t possibly believe the company counting our vote with control overall is owned by two Venezuelans, who were allies of Chavez, are present allies of Maduro, in a company whose chairman is a close associate and business partner of George Soros, the biggest donor to the Democrat Party, the biggest donor to Antifa, and the biggest donor to Black Lives Matter. My goodness; what do we have to do to get you to give our people the truth?
A video of the statements is embedded in the article. I saw it some time ago, but but had some difficulty downloading it when I came to it later, but I eventually found the complete video in an article in The Gateway Pundit, a conservative news site, and from this I made the transcription. I also found a fair number of extracts with derogatory comments from the Establishment media. The Guardian published a video with just the last two sentences, giving it the title ‘Rudy Giuliani’s hair dye runs down his face as he makes baseless voter fraud allegations’.
In an interview with Fox News, reported on 15 November 2020, Rudi Giuliani expressed the view that the election result would be overturned. The interviewer began with a graphic headed ‘Battleground States Using Dominion Voting Machines’, incorporating a statement “2,000 jurisdictions in 30 states used Dominion to count votes”. She continued: “And I have a graphic showing the states where they stopped counting, which I thought was also strange, to stop counting in the middle of an election night. [Giuliani: chuckles] One source says that the thing to understand is that the Smartmatic system has a back door, [Giuliani: Yes] that allows the votes to be mirrored and monitored, allowing the intervening party an understanding of how many votes will be needed to gain an electoral advantage. Are you saying that the states that use that software did that?”. Rudi Giuliana replied: “Well, I know for a – I can prove that they did it in Michigan. I can prove it with witnesses. We’re investigating the rest, and in every one of those states though we have more than enough illegal ballots already documented to overturn the result in that state, …”. He continued by outlining the points he had made previously about the company, and towards the end of the interview stated, “Beyond this election this whole thing has to be investigated as a national security matter”. I think that’s as it should be; so the issue should not go away under a presidency of Joe Biden. After being thanked by the interviewer, Rudi Giuliani said, “You may be the only one following me, because we’re also enduring a lot of censorship, a lot, almost complete, like we’re not in America”. “Unbelievable”, commented the interviewer.
6. Giuliani’s Background in Election Fraud Investigations
It seems that Rudi Giuliani knows a thing or two about computer security. He is Chairman of Giuliani Security and Safety, and Chief Executive Officer of Giuliani Partners LLC, which he founded in January 2002. In January 2017 Giuliani Partners joined forces with Blackberry “to Combat Cyber Threats”, according to a Blackberry press release, which stated: “ ‘Giuliani Partners’ deep experience in crime reduction, security and anti-terrorism consulting, real time threat identification, investigations and physical and cyber security, combined with BlackBerry’s industry leadership and ongoing product innovation will enable corporations to set a new standard for being cyber secure,’ said Rudy Giuliani, Chairman and CEO of Giuliani Partners”. The press release also states: “Giuliani Partners has focused on implementing best practices with law enforcement around the world, threat assessments, counter terrorism, crisis management and emergency planning”. So it seems that Rudi Giuliani is now practising in the US what his company has previously been practising abroad. In February 2019 Blackberry Limited acquired the computer security company Cylance. Cylance continued to operate as a separate division, and they have a web page headed ‘Predictive Security & AI that’s Continually Learning’. Their speciality is to give advance warning and prevention of an attack before it happens, using artificial intelligence techniques. On 4 November, 2016, four days before the US presidential elections, Cylance posted a blog with an embedded video headed ‘Cylance Discloses Voting Machine Vulnerability’. The text ran:
The following proof of concept video demonstrates the techniques Cylance researchers used to compromise a Sequoia AVC Edge Mk1 voting machine. The video shows how easy it is for a third party to reflash the firmware with a PCMCIA card, and directly manipulate the voting tallies in memory. Additionally, the video demonstrates how vote tallies can be manipulated on both the Public Counter and the Protective Counter, which was designed to act as a redundant verification system to ensure results are valid. Similar methods of exploitation have been proposed on a theoretical basis by other researchers, such as those in the 2007 paper ‘Source Code Review of the Sequoia Voting System’ (PDF), and then later discussed in the Politico article ‘How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes’, but Cylance is the first to demonstrate an exploit in a real-world scenario.
They then make some recommendations for the upcoming 2016 election, and for the long term they recommend replacing insecure machines, coupled with the exercise of ‘due diligence’, a term I have heard Rudi Giuliani use from time to time, and indeed have been using myself.
An informative article headed ‘Election 2020 Was Rigged: The Evidence’ appeared on the Geller Report website. I should first point out that this is a campaigning website of Pamela Geller, President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), and that she has Zionist links. However, this article does look objective and informative. It shows a graph of the counted votes for Trump and for Biden from 3 November to 7 November. Trump was significantly in the lead until 6:31:42 am on 7 November, when 54 199 votes were suddenly injected for Biden, practically bringing the two candidates equal. Biden’s vote then crept up to overtake Trump’s votes. The article features an interview on OAN [One America Channel] television channel with millionaire Patrick Byrne, who had funded a group of experts to investigate computer electoral fraud. The interviewer said: “I’ve spoken to your guys behind the scenes. They’re very – they seem very knowledgeable and they’ve pulled incredible data. Do you see a clear pattern between the major swing states in this regard?” “It’s more than a clear pattern”, Patrick Byrne replied, “we know exactly what happened. It’s everything – it’s just just a matter of how quickly can we get it all built up and explained in such a way it’s absolutely clear. There’s no, there’s no, there’s no shades of grey about this. … And we’re getting it out, but first feeding it to, you know, those who want it, which are basically Sydney’s and Rudy’s people”. He emphasised that they were not on Rudi Giuliani’s team, and that he had never voted Republican or Democrat. He also stated that the electronic irregularities in Dallas 2018 were rooted in the use of Dominion voting machines.
7. Smartmatic and Dominion
I checked the Dominion website, where the main headline on their home page was ‘Election 2020: Disinformation is dangerous and threatens democracy. Get the facts about Dominion and its voting systems”. I clicked on ‘Get the Facts’, and that took me to a page updated on 18 January 2021 headed ‘SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: FACTS & RUMORS’. They stated “Dominion Voting Systems has been the target of election disinformation seeking to undermine confidence in the integrity of the 2020 election. Here are the facts: …”. I wasn’t surprised to see a denial, but I couldn’t identify anything that would have contradicted the two essential claims: that the voting machines had been stopped, when the voting figures abruptly changed, and that there was a large number of affidavits, whether or not the allegations about Dominion were true. That page also linked to a page headed ‘Statement from Dominion on Sidney Powell’s Charges’, and the same applied to the points on that page, too.
The proof of concept video described above is based on a different voting machine – the Sequoia AVC Edge Mk1 – so that particular example may not be valid for the Dominion machines used in the 2020 election. I should point out, though, that Sequoia, Smartmatic and Dominion have been interconnected, according to the Sequoia Voting Systems Wikipedia entry.
The point of the proof of concept with the Sequoia machines was that there was a vulnerability which would allow a third party to intervene to change the result. This involved changing the firmware – that’s the built-in coding in the hardware, which most users would be oblivious to. In this case the intervention would change the signals from the touchscreen. Intervention by a third party would not necessarily be performed with the collusion of the hardware or software manufacturers. I would therefore have expected from Dominion a simple statement regarding a possible vulnerability.
Then I checked with the Smartmatic website, which, similarly had a large banner on the home page, stating ‘Elections 2020. Misinformation is dangerous. Get accurate facts about Smartmatic and its technologies’. On clicking on that banner I was led to a ‘Fact Check’ page. Similarly, I could see no statement on Smartmatic’s list of points that would negate the two main claims made by the legal team, whether or not Smartmatic was involved.
The points made on both websites did not refer explicitly to specific statements by Trump’s legal team, and so it would be an onerous job to check whether they had been made implicitly.
In order to try to make some sense of the claims and counter-claims, I turned to a website of Attorney and Election Integrity Advocate Jennifer Cohn, and in particular to a page headed ‘States have used taxpayer money to buy systems from vendors with close past and/or present ties to a foreign dictator, US politicians, a Religious Right group, and a convicted embezzler whose crimes involved computer tampering’ This was dated 28 January 2018, and it gives a chronology, which throws some light on some of the points.
Smartmatic stated, “Smartmatic has no ties to governments or political parties”. Yet I find that the Attorny’s web page states that the Hugo Chavez-led Venezuelan government had selected Smartmatic “to provide the voting machines system for the presidential recall election, even though it would have been the company’s first time providing machines for an election”. I find that understandable, for the same reason that Rudi Giuliani would have preferred to have US systems for counting the votes in a US election. An allegation of election fraud was put about by a CIA agent, but considering the amount of interference in Venezualan affairs that was coming from the CIA, I suppose the CIA would make that claim. I don’t know whether the affidavit that Sydney Powell mentioned in her speech was similarly from the CIA, so the political slant may not be appropriate. I suppose that if the Venezualans had been interfering in the US elections, they would consider the US fair game, but this in itself is not evidence. I think the Venezualans would be naive to think that interventions in their country wouldn’t happen under a Biden presidency in the US. The attorney’s website also states, “Smartmatic teamed up with a Venezuelan software company, Bitza, which at the time was 28 percent owned by Chavez’s government”. That situation may have changed in the meantime, but if that is the case, that point was not made clear in the Smartmatic pages.
Another point made by Smartmatic was: “George Soros is not one of those angel investors mentioned above. Mr. Soros has no ownership interest in Smartmatic. He’s not on the Board, nor is he employed by Smartmatic. He never has been. That’s been proven time and again”. That may be, but did Sydney Powel actually claim anything different? Talking about Dominion Systems, she stated: “Their office in Toronto was shared by one of the Soros entities. One of the leaders of the Dominion project in – overall – is Lord Maloch Brown, Mr Soros Number Two person in the UK, and part of his organisation. There are ties of the Dominion leadership to the Clinton Foundation, and to other known politicians in this country”. She then went on to talk about Smartmatic without mentioning George Soros.
The attorney stated: “Since before the 2016 election, a rumor has circulated that George Soros owns voting machine company Smartmatic (the company that previously owned Sequoia and has ties to Chavez). This isn’t true.” However, the attorney states: “Instead, according to Wikipedia, Smartmatic’s chairman (Malloch Brown) has ‘been closely associated’ with Soros with whom he has worked ‘to fund humanitarian functions.’ Malloch Brown also was named vice-chairman of two important Soros organizations and rented Soros’s apartment while working on United Nations assignments”. This to me seems to confirm what Sydney Powell had stated, and presumably confirms that George Soros would have had a significant influence in Smartmatic, if he wished to exercise that influence.
The attorney also states: “The researchers concluded that “virtually every important software security mechanism is vulnerable to circumvention”. Her previous blog was headed ‘All electronic vote tallies can be hacked through the internet, even if the voting machines themselves are not directly connected to it’. I should add that on 22 December 2020 Jennifer Cohn posted an article headed ‘America’s largest (and arguably most problematic) voting machine vendor is ES&S, not Dominion Voting’, and she gives a detailed history concerning the use of their voting machines. However, she first gives a cautionary note, saying that the Democrats had proposed the SAFE Act, which would have required robust manual audits for all federal races in 2020 and banned most of the touchscreen voting machines currently in use. It also would have banned internet connectivity to voting systems. But the GOP [the Republican Party] killed the SAFE Act. Why would they do that? I followed the link, and found that the context was alleged Russian interference. Perhaps they were trying to perpetuate voter fraud by blocking the act, or perhaps there were other reasons, like avoiding giving credence to fake stories about Russian interference. Why did they concentrate on Dominion? I don’t know, but perhaps that was where they could put together solid evidence. Whatever the explanation, this confirms that there are good reasons to suspect widespread voter fraud in US elections, whichever parties are involved.
One journalist who did look at evidence of excessive votes cast, in an article headed ‘Allegedly Illegal Ballots Exceed Biden’s Victory Margins in Six Swing States’ is Deroy Murdock. He is a senior fellow of The London Center for Policy Research, a US think tank, which contains a number of videos on election irregularities.
8. Storming of the Capitol
Following the storming of the Capitol a former US General, Thomas McInerny, looking very worried, was videoed explaining his interpretation of what had happened. He said that speaker Nanci Pelosi called the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and that they were trying to get Trump out on the 25th amendment or to impeach him. “Why?”, he asked, “Well, it’s because on Wednesday they took Pelosi’s laptop. She was frantic. There was some people in there that were Special Forces, mixed with Antifa, and they took her laptop, and they have that data”. There followed a video excerpt of people storming the Capitol, in which someone was heard saying “We’re not here to be Antifa”. General McInerny then said that someone said “I’m not going to do this”. “This is treason. Remember, this is treason, high treason”, General McInerny said. They say in England that you should never believe what you’re told by the government until it has been officially denied. The usual ‘fact check’ services have vehemently, but unconvincingly, denied the laptop story. I’m not quite sure how this fits into the bigger picture, but the statement “We’re not here to be Antifa” does appear to confirm that Antifa could be some sort of special forces. My own experiences with Antifa and others mobbing Keep Talking, calling us Fascists and other names, and behaving in a menacing manner, tells me that they are a vicious lot, and that Donald Trump’s statements about them are probably about right.
General McInerny referred to an ‘Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election’, issued on 12 September 2018. He continued:
That means he [Donald Trump] knew back – two years ago, yeah. And that’s why it’s all just come together that COVID-19 was a biological attack, engineered – let’s not say it was an accident and it slipped out of the food market or anything. We’re not that naive any more. And when you think about it, COVID-19: Why are they trying to kill our small businesses, and make everybody dependent upon the government? Democratic Socialism is the front door to Communism, and none of us ever thought that we would be in that position today, where this country became a Communist society. But think of what’s happening now on Twitter, and Facebook. They won’t let the President be on it. They’re censuring the President of the United States. This is amazing, in our country, that we would ever have thought this could happen.
Fundamentally, the question ‘Cui bono?’ leads us to the giant corporations who are involved in large scale suppression of opinion, not only of those in support of the President of the United States, but also of those who have been raising questions regarding the claimed pandemic, and the need for lockdown, masks and vaccinations. We are told from time to time in the UK that no-one wants lockdown, etc, but is that credible when the big corporations are making billions and squeezing out the rest, and the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? Big Pharma is stepping in to save the world, by insisting on us all being guinea pigs for new vaccines, some of which aren’t really vaccines, for our own good, of course — and with the collusion of the same Big Tech corporations who are deplatforming anyone who raises legitimate concerns.
Freethinkers who identify with the political Right call this Communism, and those who identify with the Left call it Fascism. What’s the difference? Communism concentrates power in the hands of the government, and Fascism concentrates power in the hands of the corporations. I’ve received a newsletter from Dixie Heritage on 22 January, 2021, which contains an article by a U.S. Army Veteran and writer, who states: “Most politicians are ‘useful idiots’. Very little they do or say makes sense. It is not supposed to. They are just there as ‘place holders’ for those who make the decisions. The ones who make the decisions may just be 20 or 30 very wealthy and connected families in the world”. So who is the government, if it’s not those in charge of the corporations? The dominating forces in big corporations have to be the bankers who lend them money.
Clearly, the deplatforming by social media giants is co-ordinated, both in the case of deplatforming Donald Trump, and deplatforming those who are questioning the current pandemic. This doesn’t have to be a massive conspiracy; it just means that everyone is doing their job. Is a bank clerk in a conspiracy if she’s working for a bank that supports terrorists? Of course not. Is a bank employee in a conspiracy if he gives the safe code to a group of bank robbers? Probably, but what if he is bribed or threatened to do so with no involvement in the gang? That’s a moot point. Is a Prime Minister in a conspiracy if he sees his job as doing a public relations job for the people in The City? No, he’s just a useful idiot doing what his handlers have told him to do. And so it can go on right up to the top man in the most powerful of the banks. The term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a derogatory term used by The Powers That Be in order to denigrate those who question authority. We used to call it ‘due diligence’.
A global power structure is emerging, in which the Corporations together are more powerful than governments. They can hold governments to ransom. The roughly coordinated responses by governments to the pandemic can thereby be accounted for by this network of corporations. We’ve been told about the introduction of a New World Order since President George H Bush announced it. The Great Reset that is now coming in is a transition from the ‘old normal’ world of a vigorous business world, to a ‘new normal’ world dominated by just a few giant corporations, whose role is increasingly to run the policy in countries across the world. This is the Global Government’s Civil Service. But who is ultimately in charge?
I started my research when I was targeted in 2003 for proposing featuring the main founding father of the Esperanto movement in the UK for the centenary of the Esperanto association. He was an outstanding journalist, W T Stead, and in his time he was a household name. That was my last paid contract, and I walked out of it. When the centenary arrived in the Autumn of 2004 an editorial appeared in The British Esperantist decrying my efforts, and undermining Stead in a ludicrous way. Why would they want to do that? Stead turned out to be far more important than I had previously thought, with a monument on the prestigious Thames Embankment in London, opposite Temple Station. It didn’t make sense. It was that incident, together with an over-the-top reaction from the President when I merely asked to chat with him about the association, that triggered my investigations, and those investigations continue to this day.
I discovered that claims of a ‘financial crisis’ caused by constant loss of capital were not backed up by figures, and when I worked through the accounts year by year I realised that we were being told the opposite of the truth, though I didn’t make that claim at the time. I did, however, eventually manage to get my graphic published in Esperanto News in 2011 as a historical article under the title ‘Historia Kromnoto’. At the time I kept quiet on that, other than handing my final report confidentially to the President, just presenting the facts. Immediately the dark forces were up against me. Before the AGM the President published a statement denouncing me. At the AGM the President led a vigorous assault on me from the chair, even though he himself was a candidate for reelection. His ‘Statement read by EAB President John Wells during the AGM’ was later published in their news bulletin. It was full of distortions and lies. What shocked me most was the sudden conformance of the multitudes. My former (false) friends knew how to acquire complete conformance without mentioning even one significant true fact against me. I realised I was learning something big, which would apply not only in that association, but nationwide. It was a case of what I knew, rather than what I’d said or done. The mysterious case of being targeted because of my mention of Stead took me a few years to figure out. It turned out that Stead was much more important than I had even thought at that time. It took me several years to figure out that Stead was right at the heart of a plan by Cecil Rhodes, backed by Lord Rothschild, to take financial control of governments throughout the world with a system of central banks, under the control of the Rothschilds. Stead was drawn into this by a very charismatic Cecil Rhodes – in the name of world peace, of course, which is how the Esperanto movement was implicated. They set up a secret society with the purpose of introducing a network of central banks.
9. Alice and the Money Tree
I’ve just read an amazing book, called ‘Alice and the Money Tree’. It’s based on the famous children’s fantasy book ‘Alice in Wonderland’ by Lewis Carroll, and to some extent on another book, ‘Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There’, in which even logic is reversed. In the Alice in Wonderland book Alice in the end awakens from a dream, but in this book, the things Alice learns is itself the awakening. She learns from the Mad Hatter how the money system works at the Bank of Wonderland. Then she observes the trial of the Knave for stealing the Queen’s tarts. His defence is that he paid for them out of debt. The Gryphon explains how the fractional reserve banking system is “pure humbug and smoke and mirrors”. Alice is handed a poem by the Dodo, which contains the lines: “There is only one creature more stupid than you, / It walks on two legs and it hasn’t a clue, / With the mind of a parrot, / for all it can say / Are repeats of the soundbites the media play”. She is given further advice by the Mock Turtle and the Caterpillar, who recites a poem on turning ignorance into gold. A bit of rhyme and reason is introduced by the Walrus and the Carpenter, in explaining how war and debt are brought about. The White Knight and the Red Knight explain the rules of war, and the grinning Cheshire Cat explains: “What you see in your dreams you know to be fantasy upon waking”. Following some other encounters, Alice is asked by the Frog, “Are you fed up with the Fed?”.
W T Stead died in the Titanic disaster, together with some influential people who were against the setting up of a central bank in the US. The following year the Federal Reserve was set up, and the year after that the Great War began. Everyone knows that that war ended in 1918, but it didn’t. There was an arrmistice from 1918 to 1939. Subsequently the word ‘armistice’ was spelt with a capital ‘A’, and referred to the ‘victory of the Allies over Germany’. The word with the lower case ‘a’ was gradually replaced with the word ‘ceasefire’. The Great War lasted from 1914 to 1948. It wasn’t won by the British; it wasn’t won by the Germans; and it wasn’t won by the Jews. Jews were exploited by the Zionists in a military campaign to take control of Palestine. The Great War was won by the Zionists. The Zionist project was led and financed by the then Lord Rothschild, a British citizen. Had he not been so influential in the UK, I think he could have been hanged for treason.
I was clearly treading on dangerous ground in 2003, when I started talking about W T Stead. Eventually, Stead was latching on, and at one stage told Cecil Rhodes, face-to-face, when he had tried to start the Second Boer War, “You should have gone to prison for that”. Until the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic, when a few books appeared, virtually no-one, even in the Esperanto movement, knew anything about Stead. It was their extreme reaction to my work that drew attention to Stead, rather than suppressing his memory. “ ‘What are those latter-day heresies you mentioned?’, asked Alice to the Red Queen?’ ‘Impossible to divulge’, answered the Red Queen, ‘There are many, and it is forbidden to speak of them’ ”.
So what today is the Bank of Wonderland? Is it the World Bank? Is it the International Monetary Fund? Is it the Bank for International Settlements, which serves as a bank for central banks? Perhaps it’s a conglomeration of all three. This central bank will be in control of any government of the New Wonderland Order, and will probably run it. We have seen how the corporations of Social Media and Big Pharma have together introduced censorship of those who question their statements and policies. They clearly constitute the Uncivil Service of the New Wonderland Order.
10. The Trilateral Commission
There are a number of apparently colluding think tanks in the US and the UK, and we’ve had experience in Keep Talking of one of them, Demos, whom we had at one of our meetings, when we asked them to demonstrate how their proposal for ‘open infiltration’ would work in the case of a 9/11 campaigning group. But the big international think tank, geared up for world domination is the Trilateral Commission founded by two leading neoconservatives, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973. It was David Rockefeller who invited Aaron Russo to join him in the New World Order project, telling him about a plan to inject microchips into the whole population in order to control them. Aaron Russo refused, and went public on that shortly before he died. One of the UK’s members of the Trilateral Commission is Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, and of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Again, we see mass compliance of the membership of the Labour Party, in accepting a leader who is a member of a neoconservative think tank. This followed nearly five years of denigrations of Jeremy Corbyn from within the Labour Party by a group of Zionists who had infiltrated the party, supporting a cause which was subversive, supporting a foreign power, and supporting a philosophy which brainwashed and exploited Jewish populations. Theodor Herzl, the public founder of Zionism, according to his Complete Diaries, was one of the most extreme antisemites; he had no sympathy with Jews, but was planning to exploit them in a military campaign to take over Palestine under the funding of Lord Rothschild. It seems then that The Trilateral Commission is the intended parliament for the New Wonderland Order. Perhaps they will take control of the United Nations, as Big Pharma has taken control over the World Health Organisation.
Some people at the Nuremberg trials told us how to acquire total conformance in a population, before they were hanged and others were recruited by the CIA. People in Germany and Russia can relate to that much better than the English can. Britain has taken a lead in the world in vaccinating the population, and in developing a new strain of the virus, with unsubstantiated claims of it being more contagious than the original strain. Medical opinion that the damage caused by lockdown and other measures is much greater than any risk of COVID-19 is being suppressed. Medical groups trying to get their message through were brought together in an article by Health Impact News headed ‘Doctors for Truth: Tens of Thousands Medical Professionals Suing and Calling for End to COVID Tyranny’. The same article also announced, “In the USA a documentary called PLANDEMIC, which exposes COVID-19 as a criminal operation, is supported by over 27,000 medical doctors!’. The Plandemic film is now available for download.
11. Pseudo-epidemics and Litigation in Berlin
On 15 December 2020 ‘cease and desist’ papers were served by a lawyer representing a restauraunt owner in Berlin against Professor Christian Drosten of the Charité Berlin hospital. That is the same hospital that has recently been maintaining that Russian Opposition leader Alexei Navalny was poisoned with Novichok. Professor Drosten is known for promoting the PCR test for COVID-19, a test which now even the World Health Organisation is distancing itself from. In 2007 The New York Times carried a report ‘Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t’ on how PCR testing created an entirely imaginary epidemic. This was a false alarm of a whooping cough epidemic, for which they used the only immediate test available, which was PCR. Several months later, when they had had time for proper diagnostic tests, the whole episode turned out to be a false alarm. There was no suggestion of bad faith in that incident, and an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins centre stated that pseudoepidemics will happen all the time. It seems that some people may have learned from that, and from the enormous potential profits to be made from pseudo-epidemics.
A half-hour video of statements from medical specialists was issued under the title ‘Doctors Around the World Issue Dire WARNING: DO NOT GET THE COVID VACCINE!!’. This is just an introduction for anyone coming into this issue afresh. In another video, Professor Dolores Cahill, a microbiologist who for years has tried to explain the dangers of vaccines, explains the basis of her concerns. The COVID-19 vaccines are not even vaccines, she says – though I think she is referring specifically to the mRNA ‘vaccines’. They call them that so that you can’t sue them, she said. As for SARS-Cov-2 being the cause of COVID-19, Freedom of Information Requests in Canada have resulted in a revelation that the authorities have no information. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist. Donald Trump’s claim that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab has been supported by former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. “Sir Richard Dearlove doubled down on his belief the virus that causes COVID-19 was engineered and escaped by accident from a lab in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where the first victims were identified”, according to Sky News in an article date July 2020. In my first report on the outbreak, dated 26 March 2020, I wrote about the Merial Animal Health Institute manufacturing vaccines for The Pirbright Institute in the UK. The Merial Animal Health Institute is located in Nanching, four hours drive from Wuhan. This was in my report ‘The Crown’s Viral Power Grab’. “The decision by The Pirbright Institute to move their Merial Health vaccine manufacturing plant offsite was taken after a virulent foot and mouth outbreak at their Merial plant”, I reported.
12. Merial in Nanchang: “This is like a real-life experiment for us”
They are still in China in a big way, in Nanchang, Nanjing (also known as Nanching) and Taizhou, according to their website. . Their website also states: “In addition, the new vaccine joint venture in Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, dedicated to the control and prevention of swine foot-and-mouth disease, is expected to start production in 2021”. It was precisely because of a leak of foot-and-mouth disease attributed to the Merial laboratory in Surrey that prompted them to relocated to China. Could Merial and the Chinese lab in Wuhan be working together? Could the security services be deflecting blame from a British lab to a Chinese one? I don’t know, but something mysterious is going on. I traced a link back to experimentation with vaccines instigated by Lord Pirbright in a British Concentration Camps in South Africa.
My curiousity is now awakened by the ZAPI project. This is a European project with more than 22 million euros in funding, and, according to their website, “unites experts in animal health and human health”. Their Co-ordinator is Jean-Christophe Audonnet, who is also Senior Director of External Innovation and Partnerships, Research and Development at Merial, the animal health division of Sanofi”. Their web page is undated, but I assume it is up-to-date. Merial has indeed changed hands a few times since they moved to Nanching. A recent article by Jean-Christophe Audonnet is headed ‘“This is like a real-life experiment for us”: ZAPI is laying the groundwork for the response to zoonotic disease outbreaks like COVID-19’.
Recently, Dr Vernon Coleman, a former medical doctor and medical journalist, who has over a hundred books to his name, told us that the mass vaccinations of the world’s population are experimental, as we can verify ourselves from the US National Library of Medicine’s website on clinical trials. He was speaking in one of his regular video addresses on the current pandemic. This episode was headed ‘Doctors and Nurses Giving the Covid-19 Vaccine Will Be Tried as War Criminals’. I would agree that that heading is going too far, because a legitimate defence could be that they themselves were misled by the lies constantly being broadcast ubiquitously by the mass media. However, the content of the talk is not excessive, and he makes a valid point. He points out that these vaccinations are not being performed with informed consent, and that they are part of clinical trials which are designed to last until 31 January 2023. He refers to an increasingly long list of adverse effects at various vaccination centres, not just with individual cases, but with multiple cases at individual centres. Eventually, he is dumbfounded by emotion.
13. ‘Everyone Knows’ – but they don’t
I think it’s clear that it’s all about money, but at a higher level, it’s about imperial power.
“Money doesn’t grow on trees”, said Alice at the beginning of the book. “Of course it does”, retorted the March Hare scornfully, “Money is paper, and paper is made from trees. Everybody knows that”. Breaking through the ‘Everybody knows’ syndrome in a conforming society is to me the central problem to be tackled, even more central than the mad monetary system itself. I think that ‘Alice and the Money Tree’ will be able to get over to people who, like the March Hare, assume what ‘everyone knows’ to be actually true. Only when everyone really knows what is going on will it be possible to change things.
And that’s why it is necessary to keep talking – not just amonst our selves, but to all the Mad Hatters and March Hares we meet whenever we are allowed out into this mad Wonderland.