Concerned About Outside
Influences on American Elections?
By Samuel Orin Sewell
There is no doubt that
attempts were made to influence the American election process by many nations
and nefarious politicians. Research indicates that most of those efforts failed
and votes were not changed. The exception was votes cast by non-citizens. If
you doubt that non-citizens are voting in our elections, see this research from
the Department of Political Science at Old
Dominion University:
Results
of our analysis… demonstrate that in spite of de-jure barriers to
participation, a small portion of non-citizen immigrants do participate in U.S.
elections, and… this participation is at times substantial enough to change
important election outcomes including Electoral College votes and Senate races.
https://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/NonCitizenVote.pdf
Here is a part of the
puzzle I think others have missed.
If an enemy of America
were to pair the Cloward-Piven
strategy to the principles of the new science of networks, it would be possible
to target an internet hub in a system, create a crisis, and, by causing that
hub to fail, create a domino effect in other internet hubs and the rest of the
system. See: A news release
from UMass Amherst and Doug Simpson's
weblog of research on the collision of law, networks and disruptive
technologies. See also what may be the most popular book on the
subject: Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age by Duncan
Watts
Columbia Professor Duncan J. Watts builds on the work of mathematicians, physicists, biologists, sociologists, economists and others to advance the new science of networks. “Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age” brings a sociologist’s perspective to a field relevant to those dealing with complex systems and their robustness and fragility under stress. The science of networks has significance for those wrestling with current issues of law and public policy in a wide spectrum of applications including electric power grids, insurance, markets, and anti-terrorist measures. In 1999, Barabasi and Albert published a ground breaking paper "Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks." Science, 286, 509-512. (1999). This paper showed that certain connections in real world networks don't have a normal ("bell curve") distribution but rather follow a power law distribution. This means that there is an increased likelihood of extreme events in such "scale-free" networks. As a result, in scale-free networks, as networks evolve, a few nodes will be "hubs" that have an extraordinary number of connections. Barabasi and Albert also found that the evolution of these hubs depended on the combination of network growth and "preferential attachment" - the tendency for new nodes to connect to those already well connected (the "rich get richer" effect.)
The major reason other political commentators have not addressed the issue of network science is that only mathematicians and scientists understand it. My feeble attempt at a “plain speak” translation is that all networks tend to form hubs that are connected to thousands of other networks, and more importantly, to other hubs. These hubs are vulnerable to a “created crisis” and when that happens the entire web collapses, be it the World Wide Web or the web of the U.S. economy.
National security experts are well aware of the vulnerability of network hubs and publish Network Vulnerability and Risk Assessment reports. This one is researched and published by DTIC Provider of DOD Technical Information to Support The Defense Community. One of the points to note is that: “Threats that originate inside the network tend to have the ability to exploit vulnerabilities in a serial form. This allows the attacker to traverse or "leap-frog" across the network to an advantageous position”. The most likely scenario expects the attack to come from inside the financial network. I have read this risk assessment and it is too general to connect dots as to how a financial “crisis” might be timed and executed in the U.S., but it is very clear that it can happen.
We know how leftist activists created a crisis and turned the mortgage lending business into a “mortgage welfare entitlement” lending policy. Furthermore, the hub we know as “mortgage banking” failed in 2008, bringing down the rest of the economy with it and timed in such a way that it contributed to the election of Obama. What we don’t know is how they managed to pull this off this timing.
My guess is that the science of networks was used to tilt the election in Obama’s favor and damage the economy to such an extent that reshaping it along a socialist paradigm became possible.
One of my hopes in writing this article is to encourage real network scientists to take a look at my hypothesis. One friend who is a scientist at Amherst says I am on the right track, but that isn’t enough to make a definitive statement.
Remember all that talk about how savvy the Obama campaign was about using the Internet? Remember all those Internet CEO’s who were on the Obama team? Remember that George Soros, "the man who broke the Bank of England", the king of creating market and currency crisis, was on Obama’s team? Can you really imagine a likely scenario where these people do not know about network science and how to use a created crisis to get what they want?
We believe that a crisis was deliberately created with malice aforethought by enemies of our country and radical politicians. Many people thought they overtly said they would do it and apparently they succeeded. If the Cloward-Piven strategy was implemented by this radical group, many of these events were created and have damaged our nation since 1970. The culprits aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they were involved. Most Americans have trouble believing that people could deliberately do something that produced such evil consequences. That is how people who are deliberately evil pull the wool over the eyes of decent people.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. No black helicopters or deep throats. It isn’t hidden and it isn’t secret. It is easily visible for those who have eyes to see. Those radical socialists who used deliberately created crisis tactics were successful beyond their expectations. I am reminded of Osama Ben Laden’s pleasant surprise when he was informed about how successful the 9/11 attack had been. I imagine Obama shares Osama’s elation over his own unlikely Presidency.
Columbia Professor Duncan J. Watts builds on the work of mathematicians, physicists, biologists, sociologists, economists and others to advance the new science of networks. “Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age” brings a sociologist’s perspective to a field relevant to those dealing with complex systems and their robustness and fragility under stress. The science of networks has significance for those wrestling with current issues of law and public policy in a wide spectrum of applications including electric power grids, insurance, markets, and anti-terrorist measures. In 1999, Barabasi and Albert published a ground breaking paper "Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks." Science, 286, 509-512. (1999). This paper showed that certain connections in real world networks don't have a normal ("bell curve") distribution but rather follow a power law distribution. This means that there is an increased likelihood of extreme events in such "scale-free" networks. As a result, in scale-free networks, as networks evolve, a few nodes will be "hubs" that have an extraordinary number of connections. Barabasi and Albert also found that the evolution of these hubs depended on the combination of network growth and "preferential attachment" - the tendency for new nodes to connect to those already well connected (the "rich get richer" effect.)
The major reason other political commentators have not addressed the issue of network science is that only mathematicians and scientists understand it. My feeble attempt at a “plain speak” translation is that all networks tend to form hubs that are connected to thousands of other networks, and more importantly, to other hubs. These hubs are vulnerable to a “created crisis” and when that happens the entire web collapses, be it the World Wide Web or the web of the U.S. economy.
National security experts are well aware of the vulnerability of network hubs and publish Network Vulnerability and Risk Assessment reports. This one is researched and published by DTIC Provider of DOD Technical Information to Support The Defense Community. One of the points to note is that: “Threats that originate inside the network tend to have the ability to exploit vulnerabilities in a serial form. This allows the attacker to traverse or "leap-frog" across the network to an advantageous position”. The most likely scenario expects the attack to come from inside the financial network. I have read this risk assessment and it is too general to connect dots as to how a financial “crisis” might be timed and executed in the U.S., but it is very clear that it can happen.
We know how leftist activists created a crisis and turned the mortgage lending business into a “mortgage welfare entitlement” lending policy. Furthermore, the hub we know as “mortgage banking” failed in 2008, bringing down the rest of the economy with it and timed in such a way that it contributed to the election of Obama. What we don’t know is how they managed to pull this off this timing.
My guess is that the science of networks was used to tilt the election in Obama’s favor and damage the economy to such an extent that reshaping it along a socialist paradigm became possible.
One of my hopes in writing this article is to encourage real network scientists to take a look at my hypothesis. One friend who is a scientist at Amherst says I am on the right track, but that isn’t enough to make a definitive statement.
Remember all that talk about how savvy the Obama campaign was about using the Internet? Remember all those Internet CEO’s who were on the Obama team? Remember that George Soros, "the man who broke the Bank of England", the king of creating market and currency crisis, was on Obama’s team? Can you really imagine a likely scenario where these people do not know about network science and how to use a created crisis to get what they want?
We believe that a crisis was deliberately created with malice aforethought by enemies of our country and radical politicians. Many people thought they overtly said they would do it and apparently they succeeded. If the Cloward-Piven strategy was implemented by this radical group, many of these events were created and have damaged our nation since 1970. The culprits aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they were involved. Most Americans have trouble believing that people could deliberately do something that produced such evil consequences. That is how people who are deliberately evil pull the wool over the eyes of decent people.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. No black helicopters or deep throats. It isn’t hidden and it isn’t secret. It is easily visible for those who have eyes to see. Those radical socialists who used deliberately created crisis tactics were successful beyond their expectations. I am reminded of Osama Ben Laden’s pleasant surprise when he was informed about how successful the 9/11 attack had been. I imagine Obama shares Osama’s elation over his own unlikely Presidency.
Could a manufactured
financial crisis affect the outcome of the midterm election on November 6th?
Many of the internet experts are connected to left-wing politics. They know how
to pollute the internet and create financial crisis with the intent of stealing
a national election. For more complete
information that supports my conclusions click
here
No comments:
Post a Comment