The election process in today's America is controlled by the ruling clique that uses state-of-the-art information technology, and gargantuan money, to maintain its grasp on political power and crush the popular anti-clique revolution of which Donald
Those who watch election polls may be up for a stunning discovery. Here we have a mediocre Democrat candidate with no accomplishments (if you don't count Benghazi fiasco and its cover-up as an accomplishment) or popularity (just compare the size of Trump rallies and her rallies to see who is really popular), pushed up to the top by her former president husband using his influence and connections (remember his private "conference" with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch when his wife was under FBI investigation?), and presumed untruthful and corrupt (Clintons amassed a private fortune of about $140 million after he left the Oval Office, of which she alone made about $40 million, without credible business or investment profit, just on "consulting" fees, royalties, and speeches honoraria that looked more like kickbacks than bona fide income) by so many, and yet, poll after poll, she is floating on the top of the wavy waters of likely voters' measured preferences. What are the chances that without behind-the-scene manipulations this would have happened? Practically, zero.
At the first glance it may look like the polls are cooked. While some undoubtedly are, this persisting phenomenon cannot be fully explained just with biased sampling and the duping of the polled alone. There is something definitely more sinister going on here, and I am going to expose it. In my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt that the election process in today's America is controlled by the ruling clique that uses the state-of-the-art information technology, and gargantuan amounts of money, to maintain its grasp on political power and crush the popular anti-clique revolution which Donald Trump is the harbinger of.
Just take a look at the RCP Trump vs. Clinton poll average a recent snapshot of which is shown below:
As you can see, as the American public learns more about the candidates, the Trump average is climbing steadily while the Clinton average is declining. This, mind you, takes place under the circumstances of pro-Clinton and anti-Trump propaganda that most of the TV networks and virtually all local TV stations are delivering to the mostly unsuspecting viewers. The said trend continues up until Trump passes the 44 percent line (or gets "dangerously" close to it), which coincides with Clinton sliding down to the level of 44 percent or below. At this point, Trump takes a sharp nosedive while Clinton soars back to the "desirable" levels. Again, the chances that this would happen, several times, spontaneously is practically zero. It indicates the existence of a well-established control system that routinely kicks in each time when the recorded election sentiments enter the undesirable (by the clique) territory.
How this electorate control can be achieved? You probably have got some ideas long before you clicked on a link to my column. The so-called "mainstream" media, that more properly should be called the ruling clique's propaganda machine, jumps into the overdrive with its anti-Trump smear campaign, totally abandoning their false pretenses of objectivity and non-partisanship. That works fine with the Democrat voters and some undecided ones in both parties, but has only a limited effect on Trump supporters. So, another fix is needed. Some prominent "Republicans" and "conservatives" (particularly, the neo-cons, RINOs, and cuckservatives) that serve the ruling clique or are under its control, express their disgust with and disdain of Trump and his popular program. (The good thing is that now you can clearly see who are the puppets under control of the ruling clique.) The "celebrities" and many other popular public figures sympathetic to the ruling clique's agenda (globalism, "Liberalism", open borders, bringing the Western countries down to the world's average level and reducing their ethnic majorities to irrelevant minorities by means of mass migration of non-Westerners into the U.S. and Europe) denounce Trump as unfit for the Oval Office and a danger to the world order. And so it goes.
Should the ruling clique's lackeys and sympathizers do all the above all the time, the American public would see through the pointed propaganda and one-sided "reporting", just like the peoples of Eastern Europe saw through Soviet propaganda when the socialist regimes were about to be toppled there. So, the control system kicks in only when it's actually needed, and the election polls can be used to identify such a situation. This explains the cyclic behavior that one can see on the RCP poll average visualized above. This also explains why the ruling clique's pet candidates do not win on a land slide, just contenting themselves with barely enough to win. Because driving their electability up usually requires a show of true colors - something that we have seen a lot during this election season - and, as such, creates a risk that the American electorate may discover that they are being skillfully controlled. So, the control system ceases its operation when the "desirable" candidate is poised to win and activates itself only when she is at the risk of losing the election. As a result, if the "undesirable" candidate wins, he wins on a narrow margin only. And if the prediction turn out inaccurate and the "desirable" candidate is about to lose, the election fraud that benefits the "desirable" one kicks in. (Remember the "recounts" that kept adding more and more votes to the "desirable" candidates? This was exactly how Al Franken got elected to the U.S. Senate in order to facilitate passing of Obamacare.)
I am sure you have noticed it many times in the past, which indicates that the election control that I have exposed here is not a new phenomenon. We probably have seen an advent of it when Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960.
Unfortunately for us, normal Americans, the means of control of the elections do not end with propaganda and deception. During the actual elections, much more advanced technology is utilized in order to secure their "desired" outcome. The very same computer-based methodology that has been used in advertising and marketing for over twenty years now is being employed by the ruling clique and the computer giants that are part of it or support it. (Google and its parent company, Alphabet, are leading the pack in this respect.) As a result, they will exercise the same persuasion to all those who are likely Clinton voters, or are persuadable to become such, so that as many of them as possible will actually go the the polls and cast their Clinton votes. This clearly unethical (unfortunately, still legal) manipulation of the voting process is done by the very same, incredibly powerful and successful software that Google and other advertising/marketing giants are using to sell huge amounts of the products they push to skeptical consumers.
A likely scenario looks quite disheartening. If candidate A has, say, 35 percent of support while candidate B has 55 percent of support of the electorate, and a randomly selected half of the entire electorate votes then B wins on a landslide of 55 percent to 35 percent. But say, Google, is able to identify the non-voting half of the candidate A's voters and persuade them one way or another to vote, the results are dramatically different: this time A wins on a landslide of 56 percent to 36 percent. (I spare you the actual calculations of the above figures.) So, even if, despite the overwhelming propaganda, the "desirable" candidate is losing to the "undesirable" one, the ruling clique, by using the state-of-the-art digital advertising/marketing technology may be able to turn their defeat onto their victory.
Support Canada Free Press
Anyone doubt why would they do that? Well, for the same reason why Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, were trying to stop the French Revolution, ostensibly because the Revolution's leaders were not qualified enough and unfit to rule France.
Now you know how the elections are being controlled by the ruling clique. It's up to you if you will help the clique to keep it this way by casting your vote on the "desirable" (as advertised by TV and other "mainstream" media) candidate. For if you do, you or your children may wake up one day to the Monday news that DHS suspended the Tuesday elections until further notice because one of its officers-in-charge misplaced the results.
FURTHER READINGHostile Ruling Clique and Government CorruptionMark Andrew Dwyer's recent columns:
Links to his other commentaries can be found here:
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s commentaries (updated frequently) can be found here. Send your comments to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
