The brutal race for political power is getting more sophisticated and fiercer with the evolution and use of Artificial Intelligence know-how and technology
Attack and defense in the political arena relies on surveillance, smear campaigns and the use of big data that is intertwined with conventional media and social media. A military grade AI infrastructure is becoming a common player in a political combat where integrated command and control, timing and decision making are essential. Critical information can be changed, intercepted or under surveillance in the cloud, which is a network of servers that may be physically overseas and thus compromised.
The first step in having a functional political Artificial Intelligence system is having the infrastructure of databases that store and enable the collection of information on candidates, judges, election inspectors, jury candidates, observers, postal service workers, social media interactions and voters. It is done with the pretext of campaign and registration management or “roll cleaning”. This operation may be funded by millions of dollars that come from donations and PACs or “benevolent” NGOs like the Open Society, Bloomberg or contributions accompanied by the donation of Zuckerberg and his wife for “Civic Voting Centers”.
In several cases governors and political actors that hire election database contractors may open the door for international hackers. To add insult to injury, those actors blame other countries for voter intervention or collusion like what was done in 2016. The hired companies that control the voting process and the digital ballot harvesting have actors that were intelligence community insiders or social media decision makers. Thus, they have access to experience, access to technology and databases that the other party or people or companies don’t have. If one party has more access to Intelligence Community knowledge, TV result announcers, pollsters, public opinion brainwashers and Social Media that affects the results. In that case there is violation of the equal protection clause. The act tries to establish a fair and equal standings and conditions for different parties across different precincts.
Allowing state officials to fudge on the mandates of the election code raises a second significant constitutional issue, this one under the Equal Protection Clause, which served as the basis for the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. The majority in Bush v. Gore held that the varying standards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, reasoning: “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”https://thefederalist.com/
The use of IC experts or contractors for partisan election influence may also breach or compromise national security methods at the same time while violating fair election guidelines. Experts claim that most hackings or voter irregularities or fraud come from insiders within the system as opposed to what partisan lawmakers and politicians claim in their attempt to cover up their own indirect or contracted election meddling.
“From the down of using machines to count votes in the 19th century persistently the single (prominent) source of fraud has been an insider fraud. Corrupt political machines who attempt to tinker the results of the elections in order to maintain power. “https://youtu.be/zATZHWqU9V0?t=2148
The insider paradigm does not contradict the possibility that voter fraudsters or techies may use servers and people overseas to cover their tracks or commit crimes that are made overseas outside U.S. jurisdiction or scrutiny. This is done to reduce the paper trail and possibility of incrimination. Actually, voter information gatherings go hand in hand with identity theft. Voter fraud can be simplified by physical impersonation (like signing a ballot of previous tenant) or digital impersonation. The digital impersonation is more dangerous because it can be done or multiplied with a click of a button in the “curing” process by a person or by an algorithm.
The second layer of a political AI is the integration of algorithms that classify, slice and dice, monitor, alert and disseminate this information for the political use. This step is usually referred to data mining. If a party has the access to more comprehensive databases and algorithms then the other party it has a major advantage on competing for the power. That party has a huge advantage in affecting public opinion via the information that is pushed in media and social media. It can be used for electoral litigation, smear campaigns, riot instigation, riots bail outs, cover ups, propaganda, political prosecution and ballot harvesting.
In 2016 and thereafter the Democrat party contracted (among others) and used the same people, media companies and Information Technology companies that the Intelligence community contracted and used. A symptomatic smoking gun was the cluster of irregularities of NSA downstream queries used during the election year and the “Crossfire” investigations and the amount of related unmasking done by the Obama administration before and after inauguration date. Even after losing the elections the same systems or persons may have been used for presidency subversion or a soft coup or a color coup.
One of the companies that was contracted both by the FBI and the DNC at the same time was Crowdstrike where the FBI deliberately refused to grab the servers because of threats of lawfirms like Perkins Coie or other lawyers which some of them worked for or with the DOJ and IC. The other reason that the FBI didn’t want to investigate the DNC servers and the Weiner Notebook was the threat of exposing their complicity. IC complicity in meddling in elections may also expose the increasing power of weaponizing the use AI in elections and the erosion of first and fourth amendments by politically motivated bureaucrats. The methodology and plan of action are well documented in David Brock’s papers and other documents.
Media Matters has already secured access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. we have also put in place the technology necessary to automatically mine white nationalists message boards and alt-right communities for our archive.
We will now develop technologies and processes to systematically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data. (p. 11)
Our “Vault” – a 16-Terrabyte, full-searchable video archive (created in conjuction with a firm that recently commercialized a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – DARPA development), built from monitoring candidate media appearances. (p. 24)
David Brock entourage may label every outlet or person that disagrees or debunks their narrative white nationalist, alt-right, conspiracy theorist, “Uncle Tom” ot any other vilifying expression. This method enables shaping actions of students, journalists, rioters and IC members in a mode that the end justifies the means and is the basis of tribalism, factionism, and cancel culture. The cancel culture is incorported in the AI algorithms, search engine manipulation, polls manufacuring and shadow banning by a labeling mechanism or data mining.
One of the reasons that Democrat lawmakers refused to join the China Task Force in congress is because the CCP have learned from their methods and developed a similar technology as means of expanding digital authoritarianism of using the same AI concepts to control their people and oppress Uyghurs and Tibetan people. Both share the same goal of removing the president from office. The preferential knowledge transfer of AI methodology of ex intelligence community workers to a preferred party or to China was covered up using excuses of national security or a claim that these allegations are part of conspiracy theory.
Data is the oil of the 21th century.Today it is almost impossible to move a business forward or initiate a power grab without data.
Cookbok: David Brock’s Memo
Questions to be asked, if the voting process was so clean:
- Why did Elizabeth Warren Remove the report about voting machine frauds?
- Why did Dominion and other voting technologies workers removed their posts and profiles and why their donations and support of a certain party is hidden
- Why Twitter are quick on the trigger when demoting or labeling every suspicion of irregularity link or post
- Why social media and mainstream media rely only on liberal/RINO fact checkers checkers and policy makers that shape the election narratives
- Why were so many ballots, USB drives and envelopes stolen, thrown, disappearing or torn
- Why didn’t Pennsylvania keep apart the votes that came after November 3rd as required by Justice Alito
- Why a ballot can’t be traced back to real voter
- Why there is no ID requirement
- Why there was massive observer suppression
- Why poll workers in some states cure, backdates and fill the testimony of authenticity and address instead of independent citizen
- Why CISA bureaucrats changed their claim of clean elections to the assertion that the states are in charge of election integrity and not DHS
Related Links and Sources
Election Infrastructure Security at CISA