2020 Election Investigative Documentary: Who’s Stealing America?
BY THE EPOCH TIMES December 14, 2020 Updated: December 14, 2020

... The results of the 2020 election will not only decide the future of the United States, but also determine the future of the world.

Following election night, The Epoch Times’ investigative team quickly went to work. In an attempt to uncover the issues behind the election, investigative reporter Joshua Phillip traveled across the country to swing states to interview whistleblowers, big data experts, and election experts.

This is the first investigative documentary published on election integrity in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Why was the vote count halted in key swing states on election night? What are the problems and potential fraud associated with mail-in ballots? Is Dominion Voting Systems secure or not? What lies behind the $400 million received by the parent company of Dominion Voting Systems less than a month before the election? Who is trying to manipulate the U.S. election behind the scenes? Who is the benefactor of an increasingly divided American society? What will become of America at this historical juncture?

Chinese hegemony or American hegemony.  The short passage from 55 min 40 sec, showing from a lecture on the CCP’s role in the 2020 US election, given by a Chinese academic to a CCP audience, is undeniably compelling.  It powerfully explains that China has bought the American election and is cooperating with Wall Street and the Washington elites to deliver a re-set of mutual worth.

Last week the wickedly delayed and secreted and, thus, widely written-off Home Office report Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation – Characteristics of Offending finally saw the light of day, albeit only after FoI requests from the media and much in-fighting between Home Secretary Priti Patel and her recalcitrant civil servants.  It literally whitewashed the paedophile rape and prostituton of white girls, and some Sikh and black girls too.  It’s white men, it said.  “No credible evidence for a far-right stereotype that has spread widely in the media”, the Guardian said.

Generally honest assessments are available at the Speccie, written by the doughty Patrick O’Flynn:

Digging into the report’s section on the ethnicity of offenders one learns that an official data collection exercise in 2011 involving police forces and other agencies found that of 2,300 possible offenders there was no basic information held about 1,100. Among the remaining 1,200, ethnicity data was not known for 38 per cent. Of the remaining suspects – approximately 750 by my arithmetic – ‘30 per cent of offenders were White, while 28 per cent were Asian’. This presumably is the finding used to justify ‘most commonly White’ – but which seems to miss the obvious point that the white population of England and Wales is around 80 per cent overall.

A second smaller study from 2013 mentioned in the report found that of 306 offenders looked at, 75 per cent were Asian, which actually amounts to a ten-fold over-representation, though the report does not point this out.

Instead, it trots out irrelevances to lead itself away from the veritable elephant in the room. At one point it cites information from police forces suggesting that ‘the nationalities and ethnicities of offenders and suspects… varied considerably, including American, Angolan, Bangladeshi, Bengal, British…’ (etc. ad infinitum). Yet has anyone ever suggested that there are nationalities completely immune to taking part in group CSE? Not to my knowledge.

... and at Spiked!, written by someone named Rakib Ehsan:

If the (woeful) defence for inaction is that by intervening in cases where white girls were being abused by groups of Pakistani-origin men, there is a risk of upsetting race relations, then is it not plausible that the police and city council would have been more comfortable with making robust interventions if the majority of both victims and suspected offenders share the same ethnic background?

... and at the Daily Mail, written by Labour Party animal and obsessive anti-racist but (for professional purposes, you understand) right-wing journo Dan Hodges.  He is claiming to have the inside story:

READ MORE...

The Future of Germany is Unclear

Red Pill Germany 28 Nov 2020

Israel Blamed! Iran Vows to Avenge Assassination of Nuclear Scientist

Zionist Report 28 Nov 2020:

“Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday accused arch-foe Israel of acting as a “mercenary” for the US, blaming it for the assassination of prominent nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.”

       

Related at Majorityrights:

Trump Administration Raison D’être Realized - Trump Withdraws US from Iran Deal and Renews Sanctions

Democrat ‘Justice’ Bill Would Seize Farmland And Give It To Blacks - Border Crisis Under Biden

UPDATE: Abby Martin’s Lawsuit Over Israel Loyalty Oath Mandate in US

By Grégoire Canlorbe, American Renaissance, October 30, 2020:

       

Frank Kemp Salter is an Australian academic and researcher. Most of his career was at the Max Planck Research Centre for Human Ethology, in Andechs, Germany. He is best known for writings on ethnicity and ethnic interests. He studies political phenomena using conventional methods and the theories of behavioral biology. He has written about hierarchy (Emotions in Command, 1995), indoctrination (Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination, 1998, edited with I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt), ethnic altruism and conflict (Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism, 2002, Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity, 2004), and genetic interests (On Genetic Interests, 2003). In a review, Jared Taylor called On Genetic Interests “a vitally important contribution to our understanding of the significance of race and ethnicity in human affairs.” Dr. Salter has also been an adviser to Australia’s populist One Nation Party.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You write about the biological underpinnings of the obedience to one’s superiors in a hierarchy, especially in a bureaucracy. Please tell us more about this.

Frank Salter: In writing Emotions in Command, I observed command-giving in many organizations, from the military, to courts and parliaments, to nightclub doormen and theatrical rehearsals. The methods and observational categories were very much in the ethological tradition of Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, whom I later joined as a colleague at his Max Planck Research Centre.

I expected to find dominance, and did, but I also found friendly behavior. Effective leaders take care to soften commands and bind subordinates to them through generosity and fairness. In doing this, they are helped by what I called the “dominance infrastructure,” this being the organization’s set of rules backed by inducements and punishments. My observations confirmed part of Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy: that it is a rule-governed hierarchy. Being rule governed, with obedience largely ensured by the dominance infrastructure, administrative positions can be filled by a wide range of personalities. Domineering behavior or brilliant leadership have negative and positive effects respectively, but are not required for the organization to function.

       

It was the discovery of the affiliative component of hierarchy that led me to search for an “affiliative infrastructure.” That search led me to study ethnic ties, which can bind large populations. I wanted to know if there such a thing as an “ethnic infrastructure”?

Grégoire Canlorbe: A popular claim by J. Philippe Rushton is that there are racial differences in ethnocentrism, with the least genetically heterogeneous ethnic groups being the most ethnocentric. Do you agree?

Frank Salter: Philippe Rushton’s theory was not the basis of my research into ethnic kinship. Instead, it was William Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness, which is generally accepted in ethology and evolutionary biology. The theory states that kinship bonds promote the reproduction of shared genes. Hamilton extended his theory to ethnic groups. I’m not aware of the finding you describe (that variations in genetic homogeneity and the degree of genetic similarity predict the level of ethnocentrism), though it has a certain plausibility. What I am aware of is that the degree of genetic homogeneity is related to solidarity, a sense of social cohesion; or, to put it differently, conflict increases when society becomes more genetically diverse. That finding, which is compatible with Hamilton’s theory, has been repeated again and again. The work of the late Tatu Vanhanen is an excellent example.

Nonetheless it seems that a more diverse society can actually lead to greater ethnocentrism: not at the level of society taken as whole, but at the level of the different ethnic components of society. As you can see in the case of America especially (and this is a universal trend in the West), white majorities are now increasingly ethnocentric, but it clearly doesn’t compare to the very high ethnocentrism of black or Latino minorities. This is an issue the media and the universities don’t understand, and never talk about.

READ MORE...

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, November 11, 2020:

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey marvel at how blacks will welcome Kamala Harris. They also discuss new posthumous honors for Trayvon Martin, good sense in Sweden, racial preferences for a Covid vaccine, the decolonization of art, and more mush from Ibram Kendi.