The Criminalization of Free Speech and the Faking of Democracy
June 2018
Last month an event of real significance transpired in the country formerly identifiable as England, despite passing relatively unnoticed by those members of the British public still lost in the smoke and mirrors of cinema, sport and television - to the ongoing detriment of their heritage.
Above: Jez Turner at a demonstration in London last year. Watch the story of his recent trial here. |
On May 14th Jeremy Bedford-Turner, ex-soldier and patriot, was convicted in a London Court of "incitement to racial hatred", a deceptively sinister sounding epithet for what is in fact a smokescreen for the criminalization of free speech.
Turner's real "crime"? In the context of a protest against what amounts to a private Jewish police force in London, Turner explicitly named international Jewry as the chief cause of his country's woes. In public. On the street. With megaphone in fact. That is, he told the dire truth (also through the London and UK Network Forums he chairs) about the unrepresentative yet dominant influence that Jewish interest groups exert on his government, judiciary and largely unsuspecting people. Moreover he called upon his fellow soldiers, countrymen and patriots to do something about it. For this he will now spend the next six months behind bars, joining the ranks of a growing and illustrious list of martyrs to freedom of speech in the UK and around the world in recent times. Of course, astute observers have noted that in doing so Turner also effectively proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that everything he has ever said about the oppressive nature of Jewish influence in his own country and the West is perfectly justified and true.
Above: Monika Schaefer (left) and the indomitable Sylvia Stoltz. Stoltz famously said: "They want to change my personal conviction with a criminal conviction but they will fail." |
Earlier this year Canadian musician and activist, Monika Schaefer, was arrested in Germany where she was lending her tacit support to the indomitable Silvia Stoltz at a court case for the latter. Schaeffer now has the honour of joining her sister freedom fighters, Stoltz and grandmother Ursula Haverbeck, behind bars in the country of her ancestors, for similar reasons. Her crime? Categorically rejecting the official Holocaust narrative in a video on Youtube. Believe it or not, it is against the law in Jewish occupied Germany to question that pack of lies even on perfectly reasonable grounds. The fact that Schaefer is a resident and citizen of Canada has apparently made little difference to her plight. Her trial begins on July 2.
Read two of brave Monika's letters from prison here and here.
After all, Muslim immigration - the focus of the likes of Robinson and his similarly controlled counterparts abroad - is the direct result of Jewish-driven immigration and foreign policies in Britain, the US, Australia, Europe and elsewhere worldwide. Clearly such policies will never be addressed properly while we are busy overlooking or ignoring the driving cause. But you won't find Robinson et al seriously addressing the Jewish Question any time soon. If he were to do so his media profile would disappear as fast as you could say Tommy Robinson ....
Therefore, by making the arrest of Robinson the latest cause célèbre for those still foolish enough to rely on the mainstream media and controlled opposition stooges for their ideas about what is going on around them, the devil's natural allies hope to divert attention from real threats to their power base. That is to say, men who by calling out the true nature of the Beast place themselves bravely and unequivocally in its way - men such as Jez Turner.
False symbols of resistance like Robinson, or "One Nation" in Australia, or the so-called "AfD" in Germany (or internet channels like Rebel Media and Infowars for instance), are permitted a certain adjustable prominence in controlled information outlets for two reasons. One is that they all pay tribute to their Jewish masters. And two, they provide a partial outlet for real frustrations and grievances in the people that simply can no longer be repressed; a sense that they have a voice in the phoney democracy and that something is getting done. At the same time these false symbols (or prophets) provide something for the Jews to fall back on if necessary down the line. Actually, it is the oldest trick in the book: keep the Christians and the Muslims at each other's throats while the Jews get on with ruling over both. It only remains to be seen how far the contrived martyrdom of "Tommy Robinson" will be taken so as to to maintain the status quo.
You won't find Robinson seriously addressing the Jewish Question any time soon. If he were to do so his media profile would disappear as fast as you could say Tommy Robinson ....
Let's be absolutely clear. If the so-called opposition one is tuning in to or supporting is not addressing the Jewish Question, it is not real opposition at all, make no mistake. Ultimately it is part of the problem. This can be the case even if the intentions are good ones, and sometimes especially so. Sincerity is a poor substitute for wisdom and as likely as not rooted in ignorance or illusion. Yet it can be nonetheless attractive per se to the superficial thinker or voter.
The trouble with superficial or inauthentic opposition is that, like a house built upon sand, it cannot stand up against the wiles of the Enemy for long, as it lacks the depth of understanding or the will to see through them or expose them or take adequate measures against them. We have seen glaring examples of such wiles in the US recently, where an emotionally provocative and deliberately misleading media narrative has been deftly and altogether cynically employed, as part of a continuous effort to water down Donald Trump's campaign promises to the American people on migration, and to seek to blind same people to the fact that the responsibility for the sometimes tragic consequences of breaking sound laws lies ultimately with those who break them, and not those who make them.
Those familiar with the Gospels will know that the Pharisees and Judas Iscariot provide a number of examples therein of what is today often referred to as "virtue-signalling". The Pharisees were particularly apt at expressing their malicious envy of Jesus in terms of specious criticism of the latter designed to convince third parties that the Pharisees had some kind of higher moral ground. To this end, they would follow Jesus around with their endless nitpicking, or as Jesus put it so well "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel". Of course such criticism (rooted in puerile competitiveness) proved in those cases to be totally ineffective as a method of manipulation and demoralisation, which in fact was its perverse goal. The intelligent response of Jesus to it, however, as recorded in the Gospels, has proved instructive to men of real leadership for two millennia.
In fact, not all politicians are proving to be as susceptible to trite, pharasaical modes of manipulation as others. The Italian Minister of the Interior, Matteo Salvini, for instance, has thus far at least, refused to lose sight of the fact that a sensible immigration policy is, first and foremost, consistent with the rule of law of a country and with justice, not to mention the will of the people and common sense. Furthermore it is precisely respect for rule of law, justice and common sense that discourages the kind of risk-taking of would-be invaders that leads to ongoing tragedy in the long term. Just as it is precisely respect for rule of law, justice and common sense that makes a country the kind of place that anyone would want to migrate to in the first place. On the other hand, emotion unchecked by reason and inflamed by superficial impressions, deception and hyperbole, is always a recipe for bad policy. (See also the article here.)
There are other ways too in which apparent opposition to tyranny can leave a lot to be desired.
Even if an information source seems at casual glance to be addressing causal issues, that does not guarantee that it is doing so authentically or seriously or intelligently. One must still apply critical thinking. We have discussed elsewhere on this website the commonly used psycho-strategy of supplying targets or causes with apparent support from despicable or ridiculous sources as a means of undermining the former's credibility through false association with the latter. In addition to that, treacherous association may also be supplied as a means of undermining righteous goals. And finally, sound arguments can and do sometimes attract the unsolicited "support" of those who understand little about what they are "supporting".
Nevertheless it is a reliable rule of thumb that any so-called opposition to established corruption, injustice, deception and tyranny that fails to address the Jewish Question explicitly, is at this stage of limited worth, at best. We are well past the point of beating about the burning bush. Those serious about understanding what is actually happening to our nations and our world are turning off the cowards, the shills, the profiteers and the opportunists and finding serious opposition instead.
Unfortunately for international Jewry and their lackeys, an ever increasing number of people from the Anglosphere and Europe are doing just that, largely via the internet, and they know it. Hence the implementation of heavy censorship measures on major internet outlets, especially earlier this year.
In fact the British government, secret service and press are in nothing short of panic mode, truth be told. Earlier in the year they felt compelled to stage a thoroughly ridiculous event in which we were expected to believe that a Russian double agent living in England was poisoned with a mysterious nerve gas by agents working for Putin. The usual inconsistencies and fallacies (like those associated with the chemical attacks in Syria) were more than evident for anyone willing to ask simple, logical questions about the proffered narrative. Indeed, those who follow this website closely will know the reason for that particular exercise in mass distraction. Otherwise one may find this year's February article (here) about the treasonous activities and mercenary politics of Winston Churchill helpful to understanding the need for mass distraction at that time. In any case such hackneyed diversion tactics are rapidly losing their effect. The sleeping giant is waking, ready or not.
We are well past the point of beating about the burning bush. Those serious about understanding what is actually happening to our nations and our world are turning off the cowards, the shills, the profiteers and the opportunists and finding serious opposition instead.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Mr. Trump's administration continues to busy itself with the task of Making Counterfeit Israel Greater at the expense of his own people and nation, not to mention the Palestinians. Actually Trump has already served his chief purpose, which was to save his country and the world from an unspeakable fate at the US presidential election in 2016. He now risks making himself essentially irrelevant in the bigger picture, unfortunately. I mean why should we take any US politician seriously who fails to address such obvious attacks on the well-being of his people as the century old federal reserve/income tax scam and, in recent times, continual weather warfare against God's people both in his own country and abroad? Or as former CIA director, John Brennan, prefers to put the latter to his pals at the Council on Foreign Relations: "stratospheric aerosol injection". One wonders if Mr. Trump understands that in the end he will be found worthy (or not), by both God and man, based on what he did for God's true people, which is the Body of Christ, and not for the Synagogue of Satan.
Above: What the Jewish Lobby looked like circa 30 AD. |
Fact is, the Jews have sought to neutralise Trump in much the same way they did Pontius Pilate two millenia ago. When Pilate refused to crucify Christ, declaring that he could find nothing deserving of such a punishment in Him, the Jews made a great hullabaloo about the Roman governor being no friend of Caesar if he made himself a friend of Caesar's enemies. This had the desired effect on Pilate and he backed down. The parallel is exact with Trump, as is the spirit of the protagonists. Though always to some extent compromised, Trump really did seem to want to do the right thing by the American people when he first entered office, on many fronts, but he has been met every step of the way with groundless accusations of collusion with America's enemies etc etc. The desired effect ensued: political paralysis except on all things "Israel". There is nothing new under the sun, especially the politics of Antichrist.
If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also .... At the last supper Jesus warned His people for all posterity: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you .... If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also ...." And then specifically about the Jews (let the so-called "Christian-Zionists" take note!): "Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'" And also from Jesus and John respectively:
"Whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me." See John 15:18-25, Luke 10:16, 1 John 2:22-23 |
The Euro-tyrants know very well that a country not in control of its own currency is a vassal state no matter the democratic pretensions. Therefore Savona in particular posed a very real threat to EU power. The prospect of Italy taking back vital sovereignty and self determination via a return to the Lira could not be tolerated. Needless to say Mattarella wasted no time installing a suitable lackey for the Jewish controlled IMF (International Monetary Fund) in Savona's place.
Unfortunately for Mattarella and his masters, however, the elected coalition, led by Matteo Salvini and Luigi DiMaio, not to mention the awakening Italian people, were having none of it, and a compromise was later reached in which the coalition government was re-instated, with the notable exception of finance minister Savona alas, whose second replacement (Giovanni Tria) was one deemed less threatening to the international banksters controlling the EU. (Signor Savona was not entirely forgotten. He is now the Minister of European Affairs .... )
But consider for a moment the sheer arrogance and audacity of these unelected despots! What right do they have to step in and overturn the will of the people in an ostensibly sovereign nation? And how much longer will the condescending arrogance of such tyrants be tolerated in our nations under the false flag of democracy?
Not much longer methinks.
With every such flagrantly tyrannical intervention Phoney Democracy loses another piece of its carefully concocted disguise, and that is significant. The one thing that Tyranny cannot withstand for long is light. Hence the increasing resort to outright deception and fraud. We will not even begin to discuss here the questionable tactics and shameless monopoly of information channels employed at both the recent Irish referendum on baby murder and the intrinsically unsecure postal survey on marriage desecration in Australia last year, except to say that for the completely amoral the question of whether or not to cheat is one of sophistry and risk assessment only. They lack both the sense and the spiritual refinement to understand that there is nothing to be gained by cheating, bullying, misleading or manipulating that has any life or meaning in it. It is fool's gold. Yet they settle for false victory because they do not know what real victory is (which is Christ).
Now, even the election process itself is suspect.
Indeed, in recent times, the spectre of election fraud is simply refusing to go away, particularly in the US where the potential for it is most pronounced and the stakes are high, to say the least. And where, significantly, the prostitute mainstream media, in collaboration with similarly compromised pollsters, can be counted on to make outrageous results seem plausible to a heretofore unwitting public, in the hope that the herd instinct will bring about real conformity down the line. And in the hope that the awakening of the people will be of no consequence if it can be simply fraudulently disregarded.
For the completely amoral the question of whether or not to cheat is one of sophistry and risk assessment only. They lack both the sense and the spiritual refinement to understand that there is nothing to be gained by cheating, bullying, misleading or manipulating that has any life or meaning in it. It is fool's gold. Yet they settle for false victory because they do not know what real victory is (which is Christ). Now, even the election process itself is suspect.
In his book, "The Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary", Boris Bazhanov attributes the following telling observation to Josef Stalin, from 1923, only 6 years after the Bolshevik revolution, and a year before the death of Lenin:
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the Party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how."
In fact, Stalin was referring to a Party system dominated by Jewish-Bolsheviks, an atheistic tribe whom even Winston Churchill conceded in 1920 had "gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and .... become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire" - a fact that the American people of today would do well to heed.
Consider one very recent case in point.
Those with their ear to the ground have noted with interest the activities in recent weeks of ex-US Marine and veteran Patrick Little, who ran for US Senate in California against entrenched incumbent and quasi-corpse, Diane Feinstein. (Feinstein is an Israeli dual citizen.)
The primary took place on June 5, with Little garnering, we are told, 1.4% of the vote. In fact, a little over a month earlier, poll results released on April 24 by SurveyUSA showed Little polling at a whopping 18%, a remarkable figure for a heretofore complete unknown, with very little funding to speak of, campaigning specifically on a platform of calling out Jewish power in the US. Critically, the poll showed that Little had more than enough support to give him at least second place and advance him to the next stage: the general election and attendant publicity. Of course the mainstream media, with customary unabashed bias, sent all the usual ad hominem slurs and mischaracterizations his way while reporting his polling success.
But it was what happened next that left many with serious doubts about the validity of the election that followed.
Exactly one month after its April 24 release, SurveyUSA reported that Little's support had, apparently, dropped to zero. Literally zero. We note that this was according to SurveyUSA's very next poll release on May 24, and that there had been no significant change in Little's campaign message in the meantime. (One other pollster, with headquarters in the UK, reported a similarly dubious figure for Little in the final days leading up to the election, while another two from US academia, including Berkeley, simply left Little off their surveys altogether.) At around the same time, a conspicuously Jewish website, with Google on board supplying rank, wrote a story about it (screenshot here), including the new SurveyUSA numbers for May, or lack thereof. As for the result in the April release, it was dismissed as an "anomaly" resulting from the fact that SurveyUSA had listed only two Republican candidates (including Little) on their survey out of the full list of eleven possibilities.
Seems plausible at first glance, but what the Jewish apologists for the so-called "anomaly" in April conveniently failed to mention was that Little's inclusion on the April release survey to the exclusion of other Republican candidates (save one) was far from being an arbitrary one. It was rather, a direct result of the fact that he had out-performed the others in SurveyUSA tracking polls for over two and a half months, from January to the end of March. Of course, this makes perfect sense since an arbitrarily curated list would render any poll meaningless.
Top: Screenshot excerpt of the SurveyUSA poll results released April 24. (See the full report here.) Only a few weeks later the same polling group reported that support for Candidate Little had all but completely disappeared. Bottom: Screenshot excerpt of the caveat included with SurveyUSA's poll release of May 24 explaining the methodology for the choice of candidates listed on the survey for the previous poll. (Click here for the full report.) [Emphasis CG.] |
 Ballots illegally destroyed in race between Tim Canova and Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Candidate for US Congress Tim Canova's clip on the illegal destruction of ballots he had requested for auditing the 2016 race between himself and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Like Little, Canova had compelling reasons to suspect that election integrity had been compromised.
Needless to say, in California, the aforementioned Patrick Little smelled a rat and responded the best he could, asking his supporters to use paper ballots only or, in any case, to make some kind of record of their vote, presumably with a mind to ensuring a good trail for some kind of recount, audit or litigation measure down the line. (Little may have recourse to other measures too of which the present writer is unaware.)
According to Ballotpedia, California uses both paper ballots and Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) devices with a so-called "voter verified paper audit trail" (VVPAT) facility. What that means is that in both cases, at least theoretically, some kind of paper record exists that can later be subject to audit. In the latter case, the voter using the DRE can print out a paper record of his vote that he can personally verify before it passes into storage. Despite this, paper trails are only useful in so far as a recount and/or litigation is effectively available. Litigation based on allegations of fraud, with associated investigations, are expensive propositions for a candidate of limited means. So are recounts.
California law requires those requesting a recount to pay for the costs themselves unless the contest is extremely close ("less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.015% of the number of all votes cast"). The law is similar in other US states. Given then that the cost of a statewide recount in California is prohibitively high for an ordinary candidate of limited means (millions of dollars in fact), all that would be necessary, presumably, for anyone willing and able to doctor a result against such a candidate is to ensure that the final result is not razor sharp close.
The resort to litigation or recount is made even less attractive to candidates when one considers that there is no guarantee of success with either course. Furthermore, in the latter case there is no guarantee even that the recount will be conducted in such a way as to be truly meaningful. Election integrity activists have complained for years that proper chain of custody of ballots is often not observed and that recounts can be just as prone to chicanery as the original count itself, if proper precautions are not taken. And apparently they often aren't. On top of all that, the time in which a candidate can effectively challenge an election result is strictly limited, which adds a further element of unwelcome pressure to the whole endeavour.
But is election fraud really possible in the first place?
Ultimately we are dealing with the ingrained and erroneous notion in many of us that the use of ever more complex machinery is always necessarily optimal for every purpose. The notions that quicker is necessarily better, or that costlier is necessarily better, are also commonly harboured and equally false notions. Really it depends on the purpose. Obviously no amount of convenience is acceptable if the ultimate purpose is essentially defeated by it.
Consider. Voting in US elections today is, by far, a largely computerised affair. And almost all election equipment in the US is supplied by just three mega-corporations (ES & S, Hart Civic and Dominion) whose proprietary software - the instructions that tell the electronic voting machines how to count the vote - is protected by law from scrutiny by any election official, of any rank, anywhere in the country. What this does, in effect, is to place the vote counting procedure behind virtual closed doors, observable only to a select few whose interests may have nothing or very little to do with those of the voting public to whom the election actually belongs. The potential in such a scenario for tampering with impunity is difficult to altogether dismiss, especially when one considers the possibility of remote access to tabulating software, the demonstrable vulnerability of both hardware and software, and the enormous stakes in play.
What is important to understand is that the key problem with mass-computerisation of the voting procedure is not technology per se, but the secrecy and exclusivity inherent in the method. Manual counting of hand ballots behind closed doors without observation by appropriate representatives of the voting public, and without reasonable recourse to trustworthy audit, is equally unacceptable to those interested in election integrity. The key difference between the latter method and the former, however, is that the latter is adaptable to the requirements of a genuinely trustworthy election procedure while the former inherently is not.
Actually, it really is of little use to argue about whether or not a computerised voting and counting procedure can be made truly secure or not (a necessarily complex, technical issue) if the vast majority of us cannot understand the discussion. And if we do not understand how our votes are being counted then why should we trust the process? In fact it would be irresponsible to do so. We are not all computer experts or technicians, nor do we need to be. Even if we think we can understand the basics of "block chain" technology for instance, or other proffered "solutions" to electronic voting fraud, they remain, let's face it, little more than an abstraction in the minds of most of us. In any case, the devil is usually found not in the basics, but in the details, and blind faith is not a sound basis for democracy. On the other hand, everyone can understand a manual count.
There is a deeper issue here too, a question of instilled mental programming. Ultimately we are dealing with the ingrained and erroneous notion in many of us that the use of ever more complex machinery is always necessarily optimal for every purpose. The notions that quicker is necessarily better, or that costlier is necessarily better, are also commonly harboured and equally false notions. Really it depends on the purpose. Obviously no amount of convenience is acceptable if the ultimate purpose is essentially defeated by it. And while that may not be music to the ears of mega-corporations who supply the machinery, or local officials who for one reason or another make it their business to facilitate the contracts, it remains a fact nonetheless.
Election integrity activists like Bev Harris and James Condit and others in the US have been advocating for a move to a more transparent election process for years. And though opposing factions could argue until the cows come home about whether or not the fears, doubts and warnings of such activists are justified, one thing is certain: next to election integrity there is nothing more important to democracy than the confidence that the voting public has in the election process itself. Without confidence there is no meaningful participation, and without meaningful participation there is no democracy. Obviously then, no pains should be spared to make the process as transparent as possible. After all, transparency and confidence always go hand in hand. Even if one were personally convinced or heavily invested in believing that there was nothing at all to worry about with an inherently secretive, exclusionary, computerised system, the need for voter confidence is a sufficient argument in itself to move to a more open and transparent means of counting and reporting votes.
Even if we think we can understand the basics of "block chain" technology for instance, or other proffered "solutions" to electronic voting fraud, they remain, let's face it, little more than an abstraction in the minds of most of us. In any case, the devil is usually found not in the basics, but in the details, and blind faith is not a sound basis for democracy. On the other hand, everyone can understand a manual count.
Furthermore, it is not difficult to imagine a vote counting procedure compatible with election integrity, user-confidence and practicality. The (manual) counting needs only be closely observed at all times by eye, at the precinct level, by appropriate supervisors drawn at least in part from grass roots organisations committed to election integrity and real democracy; and perhaps also simultaneously recorded by camera (much like casinos monitor card dealers). The verified local tallies could then be published in real time (on government websites for instance) together with other similarly verified local tallies, so that overall totals statewide could be seen by all to be unmistakably the sum total of the much more manageable and verifiable smaller sums. Communication between vote count supervisors across county lines could also be facilitated and encouraged.
As for pre-election polling and exit polls, why allow them at all (except for private use)? The reporting of poll results in the media could simply be outlawed. After all, what purpose do they serve except to encourage the herd instinct? - an undesirable phenomenon for those who seek quality and integrity at the ballot.
In contrast to the above, today's election process in the US is more or less a closed affair at least as far as the voting public goes. Indeed, from pre-election polling, to the election itself, to exit polls and associated reporting, the entire operation is almost completely in the hands of only a dozen mega-corporations, including the three Big Business "vendors" of election equipment mentioned above, the utterly corrupt and compromised US mainstream media corporations and the Republican and Democratic National Committees, the latter two as likely complicit as each other in past election skulduggery so as to render them quite incapable of pointing a helpful finger on behalf of the people at guilty parties on either side.
In a link from an open letter to relative outsider Donald Trump prior to the 2016 presidential election, James Condit (who ran for US Congress in 2014) gave his take on the state of elections in America with the following evocative analogy:
"The American people are like a little three year old in a car seat with a steering wheel. At election time they are laughing and turning the little plastic steering wheel as the parent drives the car. The parent looks over and says, “Good boy, Johnny. You’re such a big boy driving this car.” The American people are told by the 5 Big TV networks: “You’re the freest people ever.” In fact, the parent is the only one driving the car. In this analogy, the Parent are the wirepullers behind international banks like the FED (Federal Reserve Board), Goldman-Sachs, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the Bank of Settlements .... through their 5 Big TV networks and their 3 Mega-Election Vendor Corporations. The child in the car seat is you and me, the American public."
Perhaps that explains why Goldman Sachs man, now Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm "Turncoat" Turnbull, told a press conference following the Australian federal election in July 2016 that electronic voting had been a "passion" of his "for a long time". One wonders if he stumbled upon his new found "passion" at about the same time he stumbled upon its implications for election integrity, or lack thereof. Of course, on the so-called other side of Australian politics, Bill Shorten made exactly the same recommendation. On the same day in fact. Remarkable! Truth is, both Shorten and Turnbull take their cues from the same sources despite superficial partisan differences. In any case, to date, manual counting of votes remains the standard in Australia, as it is in the UK and Western Europe, thank goodness. Of course there are other ways to cheat that aren't electronic in nature - misinformation and voter register/eligibility manipulation among them - but these are generally harder to conceal than electronic methods of election fraud.
It is well to remember that those who truly believe in democracy are prepared to accept the will of the people even if they personally do not like or understand it. And while that may seem like a truism to some, it is remarkable how many so-called "democrats" fail to understand the basic principle. In much the same way many so-called advocates or supporters of free speech fail to understand that liberty of expression must apply also to speech we find unacceptable, offensive or even insulting.
It is no great secret that in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was wise enough, thanks largely to warnings from internet activists, to alert his supporters to the possibility of the election being stolen from him by election fraud. And it is widely believed in the US that it was precisely this, combined with Trump's refusal to assure mainstream media reps only weeks before the election that he would not challenge the results if they went against him, that convinced the would-be fraudsters to change tack more or less at the last minute and allow Trump rightful victory that fateful November 8. Which might explain, by the way, Obama's swipe at the Israelis on his way out of office only weeks later, when after eight long years he appeared to have an unexpected, last-minute pang of conscience about glaring Israeli violations of international law in Palestine. Perhaps Obama knew who was really hacking the US election even if the public didn't. He had after all most likely been the beneficiary of just such a hack in 2012.
Moreover it is widely believed that the results of the 2016 presidential election were doctored against Trump anyway (at least in so far as those doing the doctoring felt they could get away with it), so as to minimize the embarrassment and damage to US mainstream media and establishment credibility that would inevitably follow the election as a result of the lopsided media coverage, rampant celebrity scoffing and ludicrous poll reporting that preceded it; coverage and polling originally intended to make a Clinton victory seem plausible to the public. Those who followed the vote count online may recall the inexplicable spiking of Clinton vote tallies against equally inexplicable static tallies for Trump, in the period after the election had already been called for the latter.
The problem for the little guy with big support, like Mr. Little at this month's California Primary (excuse the inevitable pun), is that without the profile or means of a Donald Trump he is unlikely to strike the same fear into the bosoms of those who would steal elections from him, by stating his intention to challenge dubious results. Nonetheless, one can't help feeling that there is an increasing tendency to overreach on the part of the hidden puppet masters - a sure sign either of panic or arrogant complacency, both of which are fatal.
The Little primary and the polls leading up to it for instance, were highly suspicious to say the least, and from what I can gather, his supporters (who are likely far more numerous in California than the election numbers indicate) are somewhat aware of it. Indeed if Little does manage somehow to prove election fraud against himself or at least to remove all reasonable doubt in the minds of his supporters and others that it did occur, he will have made a not insignificant contribution to the unmasking of the Beast in his country, the necessity of which really cannot be understated. Certainly it will be difficult, in light of the chief gist of Little's campaign, to conclude that the "Russians did it" this time.
In an interview for a 2004 HBO documentary called "Hacking Democracy", election integrity activist, Bev Harris, made the following observation about the possible effect on her nation of unchecked vote counting secrecy and associated fraud (years before, we note, any suggestion of Russian involvement in election "hacking"):
"Our democracy could go out of business. We won't have a Republic left. It won't be recognizable, if we don't get rid of the secrecy. It was not set up to be a secret system, and if we don't open this thing up again and quickly we will never again see what is going on .... We've given it up. We've lost it. We're going to have to go back in there and take this back . By whatever means necessary."
Of course it is well to remember that those who truly believe in democracy are prepared to accept the will of the people even if they personally do not like or understand it. And while that may seem like a truism to some, it is remarkable how many so-called "democrats" fail to understand the basic principle. In much the same way many so-called advocates or supporters of free speech fail to understand that liberty of expression must apply also to speech we find unacceptable, offensive or even insulting.
In any case it is difficult not to conclude that the consequent in Harris' statement above has already come largely to pass in the US. Which leaves us with one burning question: if the American people can no longer depend on peaceful elections to make their voice heard and their will realized, then what other means are left to them? Indeed, those who would rule over them as tyrants might do well to look to the unique history of that nation for answers, before they and their lackeys get what has long been coming to them.
 "Three rich Jews control the foreign policy of the United States" - E. Michael Jones
E. Michael Jones discusses Logos God Incarnate, the long overdue and much needed end to the taboo on criticism of Jews, the reneging of the US nuclear deal with Iran, and briefly, Jez Turner.
For further reading on electronic voting fraud see US journalist Ronnie Dugger's 2004 article, "How They Could Steal The Election This Time"*.
[*Note: CG cannot vouch for unlinked articles on external websites.]
The Congressman from Youngstown, Ohio
Above: Former US Congressman and patriot, Jim Traficante, warns the American people about Jewish control of their government in an interview on US national television in 2009.
 You can watch parts 2 and 3 of the interview here and here.
During the lively interview, Traficante pulls few punches.
"I believe that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government", he says with characteristic drawl and forthrightness. "They control both members of the House, the House and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars and if you open your mouth you get targeted."
He adds significantly, "And if they don't beat you at the poll, they'll put you in prison."
When the interviewer suggests that Traficante has a "grudge", the nine term (seventeen years) former Congressman from Ohio explains:
"The grudge is not necessarily a grudge, it is an objective assessment that no-one will have the courage to speak about. They're controlling much of our foreign policy. They're influencing much of our domestic policy. Wolfowitz as Under Secretary of Defence manipulated President Bush number two back into Iraq. They pushed definitely to try and get Bush before he left to move into Iran. We're conducting expansionist policy of Israel and everybody's afraid to say it. They control much of the media, they control much of the Congress of the country and they control powerfully both bodies of the Congress. They own the Congress."
Of course the interviewer asks the Obligatory Question (are you an anti-semite?), but Traficante doesn't miss a beat, replying firmly:
"No I'm not, and that's exactly what they are going to say and I expect that. What I am is an American. You see, I think that America comes first. And we have a one-sided foreign policy in the Mid-East ....."
He concludes the interview with the following stern warning:
"America is in danger if America doesn't take back the government, without foreign interference."
Traficante later said of the appearance (here):
"When I made that statement [about Israel's stranglehold on the US government] you didn't see me on TV no more. Now let's just think about how powerful they are. Look at all the talk show hosts, some are very conservative, some are very liberal, they are diametrically opposed on every issue, but they all sing out of the same hymn book on Israel."
Sadly, it almost goes without saying that Traficante met his death only a few years later in suspicious circumstances. Readers of this website will be all too familiar with the pattern by now. Apparently his tractor flipped on its head and aphyxiated him while he was parking it in his barn. Hmmm.
As Traficante himself might have put it: "If you believe that then I've got some swampland in Florida ...."
A coroner's report of the autopsy confirmed that Traficante had suffered neither heart attack nor seizure prior to his death; a fact that for many made any kind of innocent explanation even harder to accept.
In an article by Associated Press, Ohio Coroner Dr. Joseph Ohr explained that there was no evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, or any crushing injuries to Traficante's body (as one might expect for a man pinned under a tractor). The Coroner further stated (somewhat suggestively) :
"There's been plentiful speculation that something other than an accident may be to blame, given how careful a driver Traficant was ... It's been unsettling for the public."
Traficante had reportedly been in good health and spirits before the "accident".