ADDRESSING WHY ELECTIONS ARE A TARGET FOR GLOBALISTS

Elections are one of the areas targeted by globalists, and I’d like to begin with some added context on why elections are targeted. And this is two fold: first, while democracy has its limitations, the idea that citizens elect representatives, and give them the right to govern their sovereign territory is an incredibly valuable one. It is hinged on the idea that representative governance (as opposed to authoritarian dictatorships) is far more commensurate to a society that intends to ensure the best interest of those with a patriotic obligation to said sovereign territory. In other words, at the centre of democracy and representative governance is the will of the people as opposed to the dictates of the government. And so, it is a system of service, and not disconnected, authoritarian leadership.

Furthermore, in this system of representative governance and service, elections are about giving citizens back that right to govern their sovereign territory, so that they may decide who to award it to next. And so, elections serve as a check and balance – more than anything else. They ensure that leaders have an impetus to serve and deliver on the mandate given by voters, or risk not being awarded the right to govern the sovereign territory.

Then finally, elections connote a responsibility to ensure an educated and critical thinking electorate, because the integrity of such a system of representative governance requires some assurance that the citizens voting have all the information they require to make the best decision. To exemplify this further, we can see it in the history of how the US became established as a representative democracy.

A representative democracy came about in the United States because the colonists were tired of taxation without representation and wanted a more fair system where the people had more say in the rule of the country. But, then there was also the recognition that for most people participation is limited to casting a ballot every few years, and governance in the interim is carried out by representatives and a state bureaucracy often located in far-away places. Evidently, it was recognised that one potential risk in modern democracy is that citizens will grow distrustful of a distant central state. And if the danger of a large republic was that citizens would lack information and feel disconnected from the federal government, then investments needed to be made to overcome this problem of scale. Soon after the 1787 American Constitution’s ratification, James Madison wrote of the importance of subsidising newspaper delivery to out of the way places so that citizens could be informed. This took place with the Postal Service Act of 1792. People in the Early Republic also wrote that democracy in an extensive republic could only function effectively if citizens were educated, and so many states established plans to subsidise common schools. All of this is to prove that an educated, well-informed and critical thinking electorate necessarily had to go hand in hand with a successful implementation of representative governance and democracy.

And so, as far as elections are concerned, this details what the globalists do not want. They do not want representative governance that is based on the will of the people and a sense of service in public officials. They do not want a people who have an ability to keep a government in check, though taking back the power to govern the sovereign territory via elections. And they certainly do not want an educated, well-informed and critical thinking electorate. This is what the targeting of elections is about: it is that they do not want elections at all! And to exemplify this, I’d like to reference the time when Klaus Schwab hinted at this. He stated that elections would seemingly no longer be necessary because “digital technology” can help them predict the outcome. And so, his concern was not an improvement to elections or electoral processes; rather it was rendering them futile and dismissible.

WHY ELECTRONIC VOTING IS BEING USED TO CORRUPT ELECTIONS

So, now that we have established why elections are broadly targeted by globalists, we also have to talk about the concept of electronic voting, and why it is a massive tool in discussions of election corruption. To start with some contextualisation, the concept of electronic voting emerged in the 1960s with early experiments in mechanical and punch-card systems. In 1964, the United States saw one of the first uses of punch-card voting machines, which allowed voters to mark cards that were later tabulated by computers. These systems, used in states like California and Georgia, aimed to speed up vote counting compared to manual paper ballots. However, punch-card systems gained notoriety during the 2000 US presidential election, when “hanging chads” (which are incompletely punched holes) in Florida led to disputes over vote counts, exposing vulnerabilities in early electronic methods.

Then, in the 1970s and 1980s, direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines emerged. These systems, first deployed in the US in the late 1970s, allowed voters to select candidates on a touchscreen or button interface, with votes stored electronically. By the 1990s, companies like Diebold and Election Systems & Software (also known as ES&S) produced DRE machines widely adopted in countries like the US, Brazil, and India. Brazil implemented DRE systems nationwide in 1996, becoming one of the first countries to conduct fully electronic elections, claiming faster results and reduced fraud. India followed, deploying electronic voting machines in the 1980s, with full nationwide use by 2004, tailored for a large, diverse electorate. Then the 2000s marked a shift toward internet-based voting, spurred by the internet’s growth. Estonia pioneered online voting in 2005, allowing citizens to cast ballots remotely using what were said to be secure digital IDs. However, this system then began to raise concerns about cybersecurity and voter privacy – and necessarily so, especially when looking at countries like the US.

In the US, June 5, 1968 marked the birth of Democrat election rigging using electronic voting systems. And this is against the backdrop of California and Chicago having been implicated in political corruption for the longest time. More specifically, on June 5,th 1968 moments prior to the assassination of RFK, news of his victory and vote tallies revealed that California’s new “electronic” tabulators resulted in slower and delayed counting of the votes, that hand counting would be faster, and that there were problems with “programming” the machines. And interestingly, the more California “perfected” their electronic voting machines in subsequent years, the farther left California became until it became nearly impossible for a Republican to win in a state that was once ruby red conservative. Similar patterns have even developed in states like Colorado.

But, here is the practical consideration: ALL electronic voting equipment can easily be hacked because all such equipment must receive programming before each election from memory cards prepared on election management systems which are computers often connected to the internet running out-of-date versions of Windows. If a county election management system is infected with malware, the malware can spread from that system to the USB drives, which then would transfer it to all the voting machines, scanners, and ballot-marking devices in the county. Most US election systems are programmed by local county election officials or third-party vendors, who plug previously-used USB drives into computers connected to the internet before plugging those same USB drives into the optical scanners, tabulators, and voting machines that collect, count, and determine election results.

And it is not just the practical issues with the machines themselves that are of concern, because there are also considerations of plain corruption from companies producing the machines, and (of course) the lack of oversight. In more detail, we generally have a collective understanding that the basic tenets of good voting tactics include: ensuring one vote per voter, maintaining voter anonymity, and prevention of fraud. But, with electronic voting, these basic tenets cannot be maintained in an electronic voting system. First, technology adds more steps to the process of voting and thus increases the possibility of error with each additional step, all of which are largely unseen by the voter. Not only does the technology create more errors in the electronic workings, but the voters can also commit mistakes due to a lack of familiarity with the user interface, especially as different machines produce different interfaces, and even the audio guides to help the disabled are reported to prove less helpful.

Secondly, with the advent of electronic machine voting also comes the higher possibilities of fraudulent machines and practices. First of all, the technology is “black box software,” meaning that the public is not allowed access into the software that controls the voting machines. Although companies claim that they protect their software to protect against fraud (and to beat back competition), this also leaves the public with no idea of how the voting software works. It would be simple for the company to manipulate the software to produce fraudulent results. Also, the vendors who market the machines are in competition with each other, and there is no guarantee that they are producing the machines in the best interest of the voters and the accuracy of the ballots, as opposed to prioritising their profits.

Then thirdly, vote accuracy is also an issue, because voters have no way of confirming their vote, and there is also no way of conducting a recount with direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting. With DRE, there is no paper trail, no verification, and thus no scrutiny of the processes. Voter anonymity is also a problem, as voters have to provide much of their personal information to the systems for voter verification, and with that comes the problem of keeping voter information safe and keeping voters anonymous – where as with in person and paper-ballot based vote, just showing your ID serves as proof of who you claim to be. Now, by the way, Democrats have long been aware of these issues, despite a significant number of them doubling down on the use of electronic voting machines.

But the concerns do not even end with what we’ve just discussed. A veteran US Air Force and CIA Officer came out to expose that he has evidence that can prove that the source code operating the election machines in Smartmatic and Dominion voting machines that determines the US Presidency are owned by the Venezuelan Narco Regime and made in China.

He states that Dominion took an additional step to conceal its manipulation of US Elections by moving its research and development and servers which store U.S. Swing States voting information to its office in Belgrade Serbia. In the Belgrade Office, Venezuelan, Chinese and Serbian software engineers maintain system administration status over US Swing States elections and alter elections as directed by Cártel de los Soles, which is the Cuban DGI.

This election manipulation often involves large bribes to alter election results such as the case in the 2016 Philippines election where the President of Smartmatic Roger Piñate was indicted for bribery in relation to the 2016 Philippines election. Now, this criminal evidence was presented two years ago to a Senior FBI Agent in Washington DC. That Agent after seeing three hours of evidence told them to flee Washington DC, that the FBI under Christopher Wray would actively work to destroy their efforts and seek ways to prosecute them in order to stop their investigative efforts. Then, several months later his team briefed three US Attorneys who were Federal Prosecutors from Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice and they never heard back from them.

So, this tells us not only that elections have been stolen around the world, including in the United States of America; but also that governments are often culpable in this.

Evidently, electronic voting has built in issues. And if you have voting machines that are connected to the internet and you have advanced AI that can potentially affect those machines, that’s very dangerous. Ultimately, the machines are susceptible to hacking and corruption, and therefore ought not to be considered… THEREFORE, what is the alternative? Simply, paper ballots, in-person voting, with a state sanctioned ID.

When you consider the alternatives we just mentioned, I think it also makes it clear why these alternatives were often so opposed by Democrats – especially voter IDs. To take it even a step further, I would state that it is absolutely no coincidence that the same people who favour open-border policies are also the ones who also oppose voter ID requirements. Refusing voter ID and dismissing them as racist is not about making voting more accessible, RATHER it is about the ability to corrupt the election process, through making it possible for persons to assume the identities of legal citizens and vote in elections that they otherwise should not be voting in!

So, what they do is that they manipulate political discourse by sensationalising certain issues that establish a clear divide in the voter demographic, like securing the border, or immigration law in general – and this is to allow them to consolidate propaganda aimed at promulgating their desired narrative on these issues, and make it seems as though their position was always dominant (even though it only seemed so because of propaganda efforts and media presence).

Then, they also fabricate the numbers to correspond with this propaganda-constructed sense of a dominant narrative – to make it seem as though they have the electorate numbers. For example: simply, Kamala Harris’ campaign was the embodiment of irony. She was campaigning on the admission of the poor state of living in the US and the need to change it; and yet she had been in the White House for 3 and half years. Therefore, it follows that Kamala Harris was campaigning on the admission of her inadequacy for office, and so the only way that Democrats could elect Kamala Harris to office is if they corrupt and manipulate the election process. And they did this, first, when Kamala Haris did not receive votes in the primaries for her to be the presumptive nominee. Then they also capitalised on the importation of voters through their relaxed and downright irresponsible immigration policies. In fact, you’d recall that Senator Elizabeth Warren has come out to say that Kamala Harris ‘will work with Congress’ to provide a ‘pathway to citizenship’ for tens of millions of illegal migrants! Warren called this a pathway to citizenship, in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on State of the Union.

So, not only are Democrats fighting legislation that makes in person and paper-based voting more secure and reliable, but they also double down on electronic voting while some in their ranks concede to its challenges. So then the question becomes: why do voting machines continue to be used if they don’t make voting more secure, faster, or even cheaper? Despite hundreds of complaints about their use, the rationale behind their adoption remains unclear. And so, are they truly beneficial, or just a tool for manipulation? To which, I would dare to answer the rhetorical question and say that they are simply a tool for manipulation.

THE TIDE IS SHIFTING: FORMAL LEGAL RECOURSE AGAINST ELECTION CORRUPTION

But, thankfully, the tide is shifting and measures that amount to formal legal recourse are being employed. For instance, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit UPHOLDS Texas law requiring voter ID for mail-in ballots, to protect against voter fraud.

Similarly, let’s talk about the 2020 election. Now you’d recall that US president Trump released a tweet in 2020 that included a quote from a report stating that “DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE.” Many were quick to dismiss this as the words of a presidential candidate we just lost an election. Well, the truth characteristically vindicates those who stand for it, because Director of US National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has promulgated that there is now evidence that electronic voting machines have been tampered with to manipulate election outcomes in the United States. She provided a detailed update on her sweeping investigations into the politicisation of intelligence and election interference – specifically, the overthrow of the United States government during the November 3, 2020 election by the intelligence community and others.

In addition, she’s also uncovered fabricated reports and cyber vulnerabilities in voting systems that allowed hackers to access those voting machines. Declassified reports detail how electronic voting systems, used in multiple states during 2020, were susceptible to remote hacking and manipulation to alter results. The documents detail specific instances where vote tallies were altered—evidence Gabbard said was proof of election interference orchestrated by the Obama administration. Gabbard’s update ultimately accuses the intelligence community – especially in the Obama era – of working with others to send out rigged machines.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso