I watched a few of his videos and a lot of it is over my head, but I'll try to explain the part I understood:
You look at the (actual) polls and figure out the likely split between Trump-Biden. Then you figure out what percent of those ballots should be flipped for Biden and in what breakdown. For ex, if I'm acting as the rigger I'd think, "Polls show that if we don't tamper anything, Trump will win 60%. We want a race that looks like it's 51% Biden, 49% Trump. So, we'll let half of the ballots be tabulated without intervention. The other half, we will need to adulterate so that the ratio runs 70%-30% in Biden's favor.
We will achieve this 70-30 split on half the ballots by taking a bunch of counties. We hijack them one at a time and assign a ratio split (say, 1/5), then move on to the next county in a different ratio split (say, 1/3). When we do this across the counties over a given amount of time in this wheel-like fashion of rolling ratios, the cumulative effect gives us the ultimate 51-49 split that we need in a way that doesn't call attention to fraud."
Here's my independent speculation: the polls still underestimated the turnout and split ratio, so the algorithm was insufficient to carry the lead. Sidney Powell said as much. So, they stopped the counting, brought in the manufactured ballots to make up this deficit in the middle of the night, and were sloppy.
What I don't quite understand is how the algo manipulation is reconciled with the hand count on the ground. The only thing I can think of is that it's like the Manhattan project: if each table is working to feed in the ballots, nobody knows what the other tables are doing. The machines, then, can read the ballots but still flip them in a way that doesn't draw scrutiny since it is both the counter and tabulator. Hand recounts done at a later date can just inject/remove ballots to match the machine's earlier flipped tabulations. Reviewing the ballot images, then, are the best way to detect any machine flipping and manufactured ballots.
Yeah, hate to say it but the US is more responsible for making Pakistan the threat that it is today. They're the US's heroin runners, satellite technology, money launderers, etc. Rahm Emanual did a lot of dirty dealings in the country as well.
https://abc7chicago.com/pakistan-extradite-amer-ahmad-rahm-emanuel/419243/
George Webb covered Imran Awan in great detail and made it clear that they (deep state) were using him to spy on the rest of congress to shift and sway votes. In exchange? Well, Pakistan got the uranium from somewhere, and it links back to the States. Imran distributed Blackberries to the Congressmen that were used to run the ratlines, which included drugs and weapons to/from Pakistan out of the ports. Several weapons factories were set up in Pakistan. These comms were protected because such govt messages are confidential. Hence why when Trump won, quite a few of them mysteriously dropped their Blackberries in the toilet.
Shiva did a decent job keeping it simple. I posted a video from Edward Solomon who cracked the voting algorithm, though, and it straight up went over my head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pVAKm8JqvU&feature=emb_logo
Some "statistician" could counter this was straight up bullshit but use fancy words and I wouldn't be able to tell who was right.
Yeah, one problem is that some statistician critiqued Shiva's work, and then everyone took that to mean Shiva must be wrong even though he went over said criticism.
That's a major problem with the statistics/algorithm stuff: it's too high level for laypeople to understand (myself included) that it's hard for anyone to believe its veracity or its illegitimacy. I wish there could be some neutral panel of experts to dissect it. Unfortunately, the arena can be as compromised or political as the science and medical fields.
If "fighting back" had the results of righting those wrongs, it'd be worth it. But that's not what would happen. That's my whole point. Every bullet you fire would result in a disproportionate action against those you claim to be defending: it would be a bomb dropped, bridge burned, dam burst, power grid destroyed, etc. The people fomenting the war? They'd be sitting in their bunkers waiting to buy everything for pennies on the dollar and build their new world order out of the chaos, just as they do in every country where they manufacture war. Even if you think that you've won, who was it backing your side, exactly? There is no real citizen victory, there's always a price to pay to those foreign overlords who ensured the success. All wars are bankers wars, and all that.
Right now we have alternatives. Protest, write, civil disobedience. It's far better than engaging in warfare and so long as it's still an option, it's worth pursuing. Notice how Trump hasn't summoned any of his supporters to do anything except attend rallies? There's a reason for that. Right now it's a detriment to the cause to engage in violence. To do so would be at the advantage of the deep state.
When I see all of these calls for civil war, I really think people don't know what the hell they're asking for. It would be hell on earth like you describe. The real strategists would be foreign governments using citizens as pawns. Americans would be cannon fodder. When people think "war" they all too often believe it would be equivalent to 2nd gen warfare when it's far surpassed that.
Right now we're in a war but a quiet one. I hope to god it stays that way. Using COVID as psych warfare has been hard enough that I don't want to see this go hot.
Fascinating how these same Dems who protest and call for defunding the police are the same ones who call them over like mommy to "protect" them the second they feel they're in danger. This guy's Exhibit A as to how we can defund the police and have a police state, all at the same time.
Band's Wikileaks paint a different story. To be clear, Band is a sleazy bag man who was peddling influence and laundering money from CF clients to Teneo. Bill was all about the hooker and booze lifestyle, just wanting to have a good ol time. Hillary wanted to formalize and expand the corrupt empire which she did, and give it a veneer of legitimacy.
Based on the emails, I truly think Chelsea was kept in the dark about her family's dirty dealings. She had a completely naive understanding of the foundation and had a typical entitled attitude, but she genuinely wanted to do good work. It was Chelsea who called for opening the books when the foundation was under heat and getting a bad rep, and Band was like, "are you fucking kidding me. How sheltered has she been to not put the pieces together? Does she not know that Haiti paid for her wedding dress?"
I don't trust anything Chelsea says because she speaks out of ignorance. But I don't trust what Band has to say because it's out of malice.
45 days to go before discovering if the US elections are the biggest blackpill or the biggest redpill of our lives.