Apollonian
Guest Columnist
Inside The Super Majority that Decide Election 2016 & War with Russia
Jun 10, 2016
Link: http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/inside-super-majority-decide-election-2016-war-russia/
How well the candidate from either party satisfies 7 questions from a particular group of people will determine who the President of the United States will be after this election. The winner will be the one that proves they are the most willing to go to war with Russia and China after they are elected. Will you do your part and vote for them?
The only thing we need to agree on at this point is 1+1=2. It can’t vary. The simple logic doesn’t care how it makes you feel. If the information adds up without any leaps the conclusion presents itself in the simplest form, 1+1 always =2.
The determining factors in the US Presidential election won’t be decided in Kiev if that’s the direction you think I’m going in. Rather, along with the super-delegates, there is a secret super- majority that has existed for the last 40+ years in the USA and this is the most important election they will ever hijack and decide.
The problem with facts is once you know them, you can’t argue with them anymore.
This group has a 50-year history of deciding elections. Included in that history are the deaths of over 100,000 Americans and millions of people in other countries. For them, this is the most important election of all time. This time, they want to bring the war home.
Simple Electoral Mathematics
With over 235 million eligible voters in the US, if you could count on more than 20 million of them to vote en bloc could you win? What if they were concentrated around swing cities in swing states across America? These are the cities with the highest number of electoral delegates. If any candidate could count on more than 15% of ballots cast before counting traditional party voters, could they lose?
In the 2012 election only 54% or 129 million voted out of 235 million eligible voters.
More than 20 million votes get’s more mileage with low voter turnout. When you take party affiliation into account it gets even more impressive. According to 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans.
This makes it clear that 15% of the electorate beyond your party is not only enough to win a presidential election but supplies a mandate. But whose mandate in 2016?
An easier way to understand this is if your candidate is predicted to win/lose by +-3-5% points in a given state and I can deliver 7%, am I really important to you? Or if I can deliver 5-7 states this way, do you owe me anything?
What if “WE” can deliver 15-18 important states this way in your national election? How about 20 states? Would you go to war for me? Would you sanction my enemies or at the extreme give me diplomatic cover if I commit or support genocide in other countries?
The Primaries- Where 5-15% Can Turn into 80% of the Vote!
The presidential primaries are where it really gets impressive. Why? No one votes. This is why candidates start with radical positions that after the convention “start to drift toward the center.” After all, they need to talk to the rest of us.
When you take the above and apply it to the primaries the math goes on steroids. Only .8% to 5% of eligible voters are needed to win a state. It can translate into 40-80% of the votes cast. Don’t believe me?
Let’s take a look at Iowa. In Iowa, there were 2,403,229 eligible voters for the 2016 primaries. Only 15% of registered voters showed up at the polls. That translates to 357,283 voters. Or just enough to make up a small city.
That figure covers both Democrats and Republicans. For either party that was just a little over 7% of registered voters. Democrats fielded 171109 votes for their candidates. Hilary Clinton won with a margin of .29 percent. With even a small bloc vote the Iowa primary could be turned either way.
The Emigre Super Blocs
The CEEC (Central and East European Coalition) represents a combined group with 22 million bloc voters. As the CEE immigrants came into the US, they were guided to the cities where they were needed to build out the power blocs for their representative groups. Most groups were a government in exile and today are the hand behind their home country’s government. They lobby for the home country’s interests to the US government. They also bring in money from the home countries to influence or outright buy American politicians.
More importantly, as governments in exile, they determined the type of government that would rule their home country. They turned over the reins of power to the new ex-Soviet bloc countries like Ukraine in 1991. They “advise” the home country, especially on Russia policy.
Their PAC’s come together to work on problems like immigration quotas or visas, relations with the US, and business. When it suits their interests they come together and determine election outcomes and foreign policy.
These groups have changed the outcomes of presidential elections both separately and working together for the past 50 years.
Emigre Effect on The New York Primary
When they are factored into the presidential primaries or general elections in a major state, they determine the outcome. Let’s look at New York where they play a major factor in the vote. It has to be reasonable to assume that in a major emigre city that their candidates(by party) will win by close to the expected margin which is +-15% or more.
The New York primary only had a turnout of 21%. Out of 13,638,079 voters, only 2,892,671 showed up. For Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, this translates into only 2 percentage points difference between the winners as they trounced the other candidates by 16+% and 30+% respectively.
Did the emigre bloc vote play a role? One emigre bloc yielded 113,000 votes. The results weren’t much different in New Jersey which is another Ukrainian emigre hub. Or even Arizona. One plus one.
What the Emigres Want In 2016
Right now the CEEC emigres are working together for the last goal all of them have which is war with Russia and China. Their caucuses are traditionally so strong in Congress, it’s impossible to get elected without CEEC support in major states. And Congress has been pushing their agenda toward war with Russia since the days of Joseph McCarthy. Their influence on eastern European and Russia policy is unchecked. The time has come.
The 7 Questions that will determine 15% of the vote and the outcome of the 2016 US elections
The following 7 questions are what the combined Eastern and Central European emigres are demanding for votes and electoral votes in 2016. Following that, the proofs of how much weight their gerrymandering has gained in American politics since the early 1950s is supplied. Each emigre population listed had fathers and grandfathers that were Waffen SS or supported them in some fashion. Their families emigrated to the United States only understanding Nationalist/Nazi political views. Their politics never changed. They raise their children to be more committed than they were.
They even advertise their pride in their own Waffen SS soldiers that when combined took part in the murder of more than 2 million people. When each of their respective countries was freed, these same governments in exile and ethnic groups delivered the same ultra-nationalist government models their grandparents had in WWII as Axis countries or pre-WWII as Prometheans Group members. And no one ever had to answer for this.
From the CEEC-“ As President, what would your strategy be to deal with Russian aggression in Ukraine and threats in Central and Eastern Europe?
What options would you employ to achieve Russia?s withdrawal from lands it unlawfully controls, such as Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria?
1.What is your position on the current sanctions against Russia?
2.How do you view NATO?s role in countering Russian aggression? What is your position on maintaining U.S. /NATO equipment and troops permanently in the CEE region? Please provide specifics.
3.Do you favor NATO enlargement to include countries such as Georgia and Ukraine?
4.What is your position on the Visa Waiver Program?s possible expansion to include other CEE countries, such as Poland?
5.What is your position on U.S. assistance to ensure energy security in the CEE region?
6.What is your position on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)?”
[Jews who write this crap are missing no. 7, so presumably it's already within the intro paragraph to above list ending on 6.]
Ultimately this is about one thing, starting war with Russia and China. For the last 50 years, the one demand all the emigre populations have is the destruction of Russia.
According to the Independent “Nato risks a nuclear war with Russia within a year if it does not increase its defence capabilities in the Baltic states, one of the alliance’s most senior retired generals has said.”
Disputin’ Putin
Before going on, one point needs to be established. Is Russia a threat to its neighbors? If everyone is screaming about an imminent invasion of Poland, Estonia or Latvia has anyone asked why Russia would bother? Do they need the land? Is any of these countries a threat to Russia? Do they hold material or cultural treasures that Russia desperately needs even a little bit? Perhaps a recipe? Are they really being threatened?
Simple questions deserve simple answers.
Russia has no interest in attacking any of these countries. This Harvard University article puts the nails in that coffin. Russia really isn’t interested and you don’t have to take my word for it. If no one in these countries is worried about a Russian invasion, why go to war with Russia or risk nuclear war just because a few whiny nationalists want it? According to the corresponding monograph from the US Army War College, “It was the unanimous view [of academics] that overt military action by Russia against the Baltic States…is unlikely in the extreme.” Sorry Gen. Breedlove, check and mate. Your own military researchers think your credibility is a little light these days.
If Russia isn’t a real threat why do all these countries hate Russia so much?
First and foremost is understanding where the CEE countries are coming from politically. Each country is a new country that came out of the Habsburg “Spring of Nations” and are Wilson Doctrine countries. All of these countries were bordering or close to bordering Imperial Russia, later the Soviet Union, and today the Russian Federation.
The governments were designed to be two-tier ultra-nationalist which means they bowed to a greater nationalist country. Picture Nazi Galicia under Nazi Germany. You can see that in their attitudes and actions from the run-up to WWII and onward. All of them sided with the more successful German Nationalists and most of the CEE country emigres in the US and Canada are Nazi Waffen SS families.
Nationalism and Fascism were set up as a prophylactic against Russian or Soviet influence inside each country and the corresponding Diasporas. If you ask why they hate Russia, you are more than likely going to get an unintelligible rant instead of a reason. They simply don’t know and don’t care to look at the history.
The problem in Donbass is the lack of a concrete Russian military response foiled any aggressive response from NATO and the west toward Russia.
The sagging impotence of the Ukrainian nationalist government in Kiev has produced a nation that failed nations like Somalia look down on. Poroshenko has successfully destroyed a country that was richer than Russia in 1991.Poroshenko’s government has shown the world how rich white Ukrainians can steal billions of dollars and be cheered on by the IMF, US Congress, US State Dept, and the US President. The price for their enrichment has been close to 50,000 dead in Ukraine.
Because Russia hasn’t dutifully played ball and attacked Ukraine, they are evil and deserve to be attacked by NATO.
Polonia &The Polish American Congress
“Polish-Americans in the United States comprise a voting bloc sought after by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Polish Americans comprise 3.2% of the United States population but were estimated at nearly 10% of the overall electorate as of 2012. The Polish-American population is concentrated in several swing states that make issues important to Polish-Americans more likely to be heard by presidential candidates. According to John Kromkowski, a Catholic University professor of political science, Polish-Americans make up an “almost archetypical swing vote.“
If you look at Presidential election results from 1916 to 2012 the Polish community was only distracted twice. Their choice of candidate won every other election. They are an archetypical swing vote. They have been described since the 1950’s as the one emigre group that could determine a national race on their own. Every candidate has paid real attention to this trying to gain their bloc vote. As early as 1960 this included JFK.
The Polish-American community is a tightly knit nationalist enclave and the only way for Kennedy to beat Nixon was to get the Polish vote and win it in the electoral count.
But what about today? The Irish named Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, is connecting with his Polish roots through the Polish-American Congress in an effort to be ready for a future presidential run. Senator Murphy has started the long neglected “Polish Caucus” to better gain support and contributions later on.
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy obviously doesn’t trust the average American voter. But by making his appeal to this particular super majority he’s almost a shoo-in when he runs after this election cycle. Murphy gained notoriety by fully supporting the Ukrainian coup and weapons purchases for neo-nazi and Ukrainian nationalist groups killing civilians in Donbass. While I don’t think Mr. Murphy is politically developed enough yet to call him a Polish nazi, the alternative classification is sad. It makes him a Pole-Lackey.
What do the Poles want? War with Russia. This is especially clear because Poland is pushing to make sure it happens. Bill Clinton won the Polish-American vote for helping Poland enter NATO in 1996. He recently gave his assessment of Polish nationalist politics.
Is Bill Clinton correct saying that the Hungarians, the Poles and by extension the Polish-American community that gave them their nationalism are looking for their own authoritarian leader and reject democracy? Yes, he is. While we think of the Poles as victims in WWII, along with the Ukrainians they were the first ultra-nationalists. It wasn’t Adolf Hitler and the 3rd Reich. They hate Russia and love nationalism.
They counted on the fact that their nationalism would keep Germany friendly toward them. The Polish nationalists should have thought about that before taking German and Soviet territory prior to the Great war. “Poland was accused of being an accomplice of Nazi Germany – a charge that Warsaw was hard put to deny.”
“The Pole is not free to Americanize because wherever he is – he has a mission to fulfill” has been the rallying cry of Polish nationalists in America all these years.
To make the point clear, the family of Jack Warner of Warner Bros. Pictures immigrated from Poland in 1888 to escape Polish nationalism/Nazism that was the fallout from the Spring of Nations of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Like Ukraine before WWI, Poland did not exist except in the minds of ultra-nationalists and as an experimental model of nationalist government designed by the Habsburgs.
What was the Polish American Congress reaction to Bill Clinton‘s statement? “The Polish American Congress threatens to undermine Clinton campaign.It’s therefore, no surprise the Polish American Congress has protested, announcing it may throw its weight in the election behind anybody not named Clinton.” “Polish Americans are thick on the ground in several states Hillary Clinton will need to win in November if she plans to be our next president—including Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New York and New Jersey.”
Does this sound like a super bloc vote to you? The last time a candidate insulted the Polish-Americans, it was the gaff prone Gerald Ford. Ford, until that moment, had their vote and the election against Jimmy Carter was almost wrapped up. Despite the fact that the president of the Polish-American Congress was friends with Ford, the damage was done too close to the election. The Polish-American bloc went with Carter.
Is this good for Donald Trump? Not quite. Polonia is divided on this issue because Clinton represents the best candidate for longer range goals. November is a long way off. Full Polish support and war is only a half-hearted apology away.
Just ask Anne Applebaum, wife of former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski a staunch Polish Nationalist about how hypocritical we are to call a democracy, nationalism. “People close to the couple say she inspires his foreign policy plans and strategies” and “Europe’s history, he warned before anyone else, would be decided in Ukraine.”
“In the United States, we dislike the word “nationalism” and so, hypocritically, we call it other things: “American exceptionalism,” for example, or a “belief in American greatness.” We also argue about it as if it were something rational—Mitt Romney wrote a book that put forth the “case for American greatness”—rather than acknowledging that nationalism is fundamentally emotional. In truth, you can’t really make “the case” for nationalism; you can only inculcate it, teach it to children, cultivate it at public events.” – Anne Applebaum
This article is the first in a series opening up the subject of election manipulation and how people with stronger ties to foreign countries than to the US are putting up the candidates we vote for and controlling foreign policy. Both are bad ideas.
Part 2 shows clearly and horrifically just how far the support has gone from “our” democratically elected presidents to these constituents regardless of what US laws are.
“The breathtaking record of perfidy is so mutated in the public mind, wrote the late Harold Pinter, that it “never happened …Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. It didn’t matter …” –Harold Pinter
Another way of putting this is 1+1=2. Do the math.