Search Engine Manipulation Effect

Big Tech subliminal manipulation of search engines effectively ends democracy as we know it, according to congressional testimony by Dr Robert Epstien in July 2019 (No relative of Jeffrey, by the way). See video below of his testimony.

We know it happens

In April 2015, Hillary Clinton hired Stephanie Hannon from Google to be her chief technology officer. In 2015 Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google’s holding company started a company – The Groundwork – for the specific purpose of electing Clinton. Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, called Google her ‘secret weapon’. Researchers estimated that Google could help her win the nomination and could deliver between 2.6 and 10.4 million general election votes to Clinton via SEME – Search Engine Manipulation Effect. Since search results are ephemeral, legally permissiable evidence could only come via a Google whistleblower or an external hacker. However, Epstien proved this occured with experimental results.

In addition, on June 9, 2016, SourceFed alleged that Google manipulated its searches in favor of Clinton because the recommended searches for her are different than the recommended searches to both Yahoo and Bing and yet the searches for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are identical to both Yahoo and Bing. When “Hillary Clinton Ind” was entered in the search bar, Google Autocomplete suggested “Hillary Clinton Indiana”, while the other vendors suggested “Hillary Clinton indictment”. Furthermore, SourceFed placed the recommended searches for Clinton on Google Trends and observed that the Google suggestion was searched less than the suggestion from the other vendors.

Dr Epstien’s Video

Robert Epstin’s Video click here from CSPAN.

Relationship to Other Technologies

So search engine results alone can manipulate voters and votes by a huge proportion. This is the impact on intelligent people SEARCHING for information… now consider the impact of Cambridge Analytica’s approach of PUSHING information to casual social media users by ads, messaging and automated “likes”. See 1, 2, 3. Yet the same “ephemeral” characteristics apply to both – both near impossible to detect and only available to the rich and technically savy elite.

Implications for GE2019

The Big Tech effect has been known about for years. The Governments knew what they doing. The anti-Labour, anti-Jeremy Corbyn PysOps was in place since at least 2017 and probably before. Don’t blame the lambs impacted by information manipulation: blame the people that enforced this terrible Tory government onto us.

What is all the fuss about Cambridge Analytica? Part 3

So Part 1 described the background and origins of Cambridge Analytica (CA).

Part 2 described the objective of Robert Mercer and with Carole Cadwallar describing the impact on Vote Leave.

This part is about the methods and implications of CA on electoral processes.

Hitting the Headlines

In March 2018, multiple media outlets broke news of Cambridge Analytica’s business practices: The New York Times and The Observer reported that the company had used Facebook data for its campaign activities and shortly afterwards, Channel 4 News aired undercover investigative videos showing CA CEO Alexander Nix boasting about using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to discredit politicians on whom it conducted “opposition research”. CA claimed it had “ran all of (Donald Trump’s) digital campaign” in 2016 Presidential election. In response in the UK, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) issued a warrant to search the company’s servers. Meanwhile Facebook banned CA from advertising on its platform, saying that it had been deceived. On 23 March 2018, the ICO was granted a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica’s London offices.

Amazon said that they suspended CA from using their Cloud Hosting Services. The governments of India and Brazil demanded that CA report how their data was used in political campaigning.

In early July 2018, the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office announced it intended to fine Facebook £500,000 ($663,000) over the data scandal, this being the maximum fine allowed at the time of the breach, saying Facebook “contravened the law by failing to safeguard people’s information”.

Also in July 2019, in the USA, Facebook was fined $5billion for its minor part in the data breach.

Rather too late… CA is now “gone” but their methods, their “genie” is now out of the bottle.

What did they do?

Wikipedia describes the method CA used to gain personal data. CA developed a Facebook app called “This Is Your Digital Life.” Aleksandr Kogan, a data scientist at Cambridge University, developed the app sometimes called “thisisyourdigitallife” and provided the app to CA who then posted it to Facebook. This third-party app then had permission to acquire data from Facebook users that not only entered data into a quiz-like game but also gave the app access to information on the user’s friends network; this resulted in the data of about 87 million users, the majority of whom had no idea their personal data was being collected for political ends. It goes without saying that the app breached Facebook’s terms of service but Facebook did not police any app particularly well (hence the reason for the $5b fine).

Follow this link to hear Alexander Nix describe the CA Big Data approach elections or this one to hear how big data helped Senator Ted Cruz in 2016. Nix claims that CA had 4000 parameters for every voter in the USA. From these parameters, not only demographics and location were uncovered but also psychographic profiles, the attitudes of each person distilled down to a few variables! This allowed, for any given political campaign, what kind of advertisement would be most effective to persuade a particular person for vote (or not vote) for any particular candidate or cause.

What CA has invented is the technology to subvert the traditional election processes to introduce:

  • Personalised messages – Nix claims top down broadcasting is dead. All future elections will be personalised messages based on a person’s psychographic profile.
  • Psychographic profiles are used to identify, and then reinforce, bias and prejudices.
  • Political promises are not on mainstream media, so not open to secutiny and debate, but are on social media. Fired up and forgotten with no follow up – reverting back to before Hansard when politicians were not held to account for any commitments.
  • Complete Situation Awareness of each individual’s motivations so that in all probability, each person can be manipulated using targeted messages to vote in the way expected (plus leaving the election to nefarious manipulation).

What are Psychographics?

Psychographic profiles can be valuable in the fields of marketing, demographics, opinion research, prediction, and social research in general.

All the research for political ends has already been established for marketing and advertising of products. Demographic information includes gender, age, income, marital status – the dry facts. In the past marketing was all about Demographics: making sure your advert went out to males or females of a partical age. Psychographics are kind of like demographics. Psychographic information might be your buyer’s habits, hobbies, spending habits and values. Demographics explain “who” the buyer is, while psychographics explain “why” they buy. Advertisers now reach their target audience both by demographics and psychographics. What does it say about you if you drive BMW and read the Telegraph… or if own an allotment and make jam? All this information has been condensed down into a set of number. This approach was proven in the commercial market, CA weaponised Psychographics for electioneering…

Psychographics gained prominence in the 2016 US presidential election since both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump used them extensively in microtargeting advertisements to narrow constituencies.

So CA’s “This Is Your Digital Life” basically provided a mainline feed into pyschographic data. But CA also collected data on voters using sources such as consumer behaviourinternet activity, and other public and private sources. According to The Guardian, CA used psychological data derived from millions of Facebook users, largely without users’ permission or knowledge. Another source of information was the “Cruz Crew” mobile app that “gamified” election campaigning by giving points for the number of political social media messages circulated by the player. But more than that it tracked physical movements and contacts on the player’s smart phone and so invaded personal data more than any previous electioneering method.

Alexander Nix, chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, October 2016, said “Today in the United States we have somewhere close to four or five thousand data points on every individual … So we model the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230 million people.”

CA’s data analysis methods were to a large degree based on the academic work of Michal Kosinski. In 2008, Kosinski had joined the Psychometrics Centre of Cambridge University where he then developed with his colleagues a profiling system using general online data, Facebook-likes, and smartphone data. He showed that with a limited number of “likes”, people can be analysed better than friends or relatives can do and that individual psychological targeting is a powerful tool to influence people.

This aspect of facebook-likes is absolutely key and – as far as I can tell – is missed in most write-ups of the Presidential Election 2016 and GE2019 Fraud.

Facebook “Likes”

Most, but not all. It was discussed extensively in 2018 by CBS which states “Facebook ‘likes’ can signal a lot about a person. Maybe even enough to fuel a voter-manipulation effort like the one a Trump-affiliated data-mining firm stands accused of — and which Facebook may have enabled. The social network is under fire after The New York Times and The Guardian newspaper reported that former Trump campaign consultant Cambridge Analytica used data, including user likes, inappropriately obtained from roughly 50 million Facebook users to try to influence elections.

The issue of the addictive nature of facebook and the dopamine hit when someone “likes” your post is well known. So how important is that “like” if it just came from a bot? Can they even do that? Yes.

Technology to Support CA

If the data collected by CA was all performed by party workers then would it all be bad? Probably not: doorstepping in elections trys to collect similar type of data. But CA introduced the mechanism to do this quite automatically, without permission, by impersonation and by the the “backdoor”. Besides the (illegal) aggregation of data from a various sources, this is the type of technology that CA used in order to recognise and give facebook “likes”:

  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Sentiment Analysis – this sort of AI can read thousands of posts and determine whether any particular post supports the camapign, against it or whether it is just another cat video.
  • Robot Process Automation (RPA) This allows a series of automatic actions to occur online, for instance: read a facebook message, work out if the sentiment supports the camapign, clicks the “like” button.
  • Bots and Sock Puppets – basically fake accounts – either a Bot which is a fake account which performs a repetative RPA action, for example, “liking” a facebook message; or a sock puppet, a human controlled fake account, that can enter into hundreds of discussions online dissing the opponents and/or talking up the camapign with prepared slogans.

The set up and running of this technology requires a huge amount of capital intensive investment (this is where the rich, organised “few” outgun the poor, disorganised “many”). So democracy is now a hidden war between people-powered electioneering (“the people”) against a limitless army of hidden robots controlled and funded by a few billionaires. This technological army is not even in party headquarters but can be outsourced to friendly front organisations, commercial organisations or even foriegn powers.

The Hub

The only thing needed for any political HQ is the data collection hub. HQ will ensure the right campaign messages are being fed in a way that is compelling… to a “plan”. That requires technology again but it is cheaper and readily available off the shelf in the form of a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. This a tool to manage an organisations interaction with current and potential customers – everytime you phone up a major corporation nowadays you are being managed by a CRM system such as Microsoft Dynamics CRM, Salesforce or SugarCRM. Now replace the word “customers” with “voters” and the tool works just as well. Just look at the (proven) results of CRM and see how they apply to election campaigns.

  1. Enhanced ability to target profitable customers. (Replace “profitable customers” with “likely voters”)
  2. Integrated assistance across channels. (Use of Bots, Sock Puppets, Newspapers or leaflets to promote your propaganda)
  3. Enhanced sales force efficiency and effectiveness. (Replace “salesforce” with “campaign staff”)
  4. Improved pricing. (Instead of pricing, think “extract donations”)
  5. Customized products and services. (Tailor message for particular poltical concern: health, environment, business etc)
  6. Improved customer service efficiency and effectiveness. (Improve approval ratings)
  7. Individualized marketing messages (also called plans). (A set of messages just to engage each individual voter, there can be multiple plans depending on the voter’s concern)
  8. Connect customers and all channels on a single platform. (A complete view of Voter Intentions).

Architect of the Vote Leave and Conservative GE2019, Dominic Cummings, called his central database of voters, the Voter Intention Collection System (VICS). It is described in his blog. He describes how he developed ads for social media, trialed them and targetted them. The data feeding VICS was both “conventional and unconventional” – from that we can assume conventional = demographic data – freely available to political parties – and unconventional = psychographic… as described above – illegal. Illegal to the price of $5billion just to facebook alone for allowing a loophole in its software. How much more illegal is it for people to deliberately exploit that loophole?

But wait there’s more…

Just consider the power now available to the rich elites with such technology at their disposal:

  • A list of every voter.
  • With social media data then the on-line accounts can be linked to voters in the electoral register probably in 80% of all cases.
  • This enables the identification of all people strongly aligned with campaign messages and will vote.
  • And the identification of all people strongly opposing the campaign.
  • This identifies the battle ground! The non-aligned people.

Pyschographics help sort out the battleground. Since the social network shows who is friends with whom, then the probability of voter intentions can be calculated with different levels of certainity… until you have complete and utter situation awareness of how people will vote. People do respond to the information they’ve received but if all the information is biased and plays into pre-set grooves enabled by the mainstream media then, people respond collectively in herd like behaviour. Dominic Cummings tested his “messaging” in carefully selected groups. When the message had the right effect, he sent out targeted political ads and using the AI and Big Data analysis re-calculated the expected voter intentions so that he could predict an 80 seat majority for the Tories. And he got an 80 seat majority for the Tories. This level of estimation precision requires computers. And probably coercion (see below). The Conservative Party was able to deliver an astonishing efficiency at delivering seats in 2019: One seat for every 38264 votes (a 10% efficiency improvement over 2017) while the LibDems were amazingly less efficient: one each seat for every 300,000 votes, a 50% decrease in efficency. And, unlike Jo Swinson travelling the country in a bus (and even losing her seat), Boris Johnson never really needed to go out and campaign or even do many TV interviews.

Minimum Fraud / Maximum Outcome

There are further tools in the toolchest. Having complete situation awareness allows other useful things:

  • it identifies marginal consistencies.
  • it identifies people that are unlikly to vote
  • it identifies people that will be using a postal vote
  • it identifies people that are misaligned with the electoral registers

We know postal voting fraud exists and is widespread. Complete situation awareness of voter intentions now allows two useful forms of election fraud, which can be set at the minimum level that arouses the least suspicion:

  • Voter Suppression for those people of the wrong demographics and pyschometrics that are misaligned with the electoral register and/or registered for postal votes. (eg postal votes not delivered, arrive late or invalidated). Voter suppression is regarded as a non-crime – the voter is always blamed for any administrative error.
  • Ballot Box Stuffing, by postal votes, impersonating people that are unlikely to vote. A virtually undetectable crime!

What’s all the fuss?

Now do you see what the fuss is all about?

  • No need to campaign
  • Lower campaign costs (as long the computer system costs can be hidden)
  • No need to be held to account for any promises or policies
  • Set up the perfect way to secure a seat with the minimum level of fraud – so small that it is hardly detectable.
  • Confidence of predicting the election result nationally (100% accuracy)
  • Confidence of securing any particular local seat (as long as there is a high level of postal votes!)

What is all the fuss about Cambridge Analytica? Part 2

Part 1 described the origins of Cambridge Analytica when Steve Bannon persuaded oligargh Robert Mercer to invest in the company in order to infulence the 2016 presidential election. Who is Robert Mercer? He is an American multi-multi-millionaire who funded various right wing political activity including Nigel Farage’s Brexit campaign as well as funding many right-wing political causes in the United States, such as Breitbart News and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for president.

Mercer started out as computer scientist, an early artificial intelligence researcher, then later became CEO of the hedge fund company Renaissance Technologies. In 2015, The Washington Post called Mercer one of the ten most influential billionaires in politics. Mercer was shown data that indicated “voters were becoming alienated from both political parties and mainstream candidates” which probably led him to support Trump in the Republican race in 2016.

To test run, Cambridge Analytica’s approach to infulence elections, Mercer became involved in the EU Referendum, donating the services of Cambridge Analytica (CA) to Nigel Farage and Leave.EU. CA harvested data from Facebook profiles (more about in Part 3) in order to target them with individualized ads to vote for Brexit. CA, through Canadian digital firm AggregateIQ also advised Dominic Cummings’ VoteLeave campaign, which delivered an estimated one billion individually curated targeted adverts to voters in the lead up to the Brexit referendum, in contravention of established voting rules. Neither VoteLeave and Leave.EU informed the UK electoral commission of Mercer’s donations. In 2018, the Electoral Commission found the VoteLeave campaign guilty of breaking electoral law.

For the 2016 US Presidential Election, it was revealed that Mercer funded anti-muslim adverts on facebook.

“Adverts”… it sounds so tame, doesn’t it? Part 3 will be discussing this in more detail but in the meantime, this is a must-watch TED talk by Carole Cadwallar who slams into facebook and the impact that social media is making on the UK’s antiquated election laws.

What is all the fuss about Cambridge Analytica? Part 1

To avoid making this article epic length, it will be broken down in stages. This is Part 1, Background

Cambridge Analytica was founded (around 2013-2015) by conservative businessmen Steve Bannon and Oligargh Robert Mercer in order to infulence the 2016 presidential election. Around 15 million dollars was originally invested into the company by Mercer as a subsidiary to the SCL group.

CA did not spring out of nowhere. It has a history and before delving into CA, you need to know more about the SCL Group and the Behavioural Dynamics Institute (BDI)

In 1990, Nigel Oakes, who had a background in TV production and advertising, founded the BDI as a research facility for strategic communication: the study of mass behaviour and how to change it. Oakes thought that to shift mass opinion, academic insights as gained through psychologists and anthropologists at BDI should be applied, and would be more successful than traditional advertising methods. Oakes established Strategic Communication Laboratories in 1993 to monetise the BDI research while BDI became a non-profit affiliate of SCL.

SCL was successful commercially and then expanded into military and political arenas. It became known for alleged involvement “in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting”. In 2005, “with a glitzy exhibit” at Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI), “the United Kingdom’s largest showcase for military technology”, SCL demonstrated its capacity in “influence operations”, in particular, “to help orchestrate a sophisticated campaign of mass deception” on the public. According to its website, SCL has participated in over 25 international political and electoral campaigns since 1994.

SCL’s involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will. It uses what have been called “PsyOps” to provide influence the thinking of the target audience. SCL claimed to be able to help foment coups. According to its website, SCL has influenced elections in Italy, Latvia, Ukraine, Albania, Romania, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Mauritius, India, Indonesia, The Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, Colombia, Antigua, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, St. Kitts & Nevis, and Trinidad & Tobago. While the company initially got involved in elections in the United Kingdom, it ceased to do so after 1997 because staff members did not exhibit the same “aloof sensibility” as with projects abroad.

SCL claims that its methodology (more on this in a later part) has been approved or endorsed by agencies of the Government of the United Kingdom and the Federal government of the United States, among others.

CEO of CA is Alexander Nix. Follow this link to hear him describe the CA Big Data approach elections or this one to hear how big data helped Senator Ted Cruz in 2016. Where is Nix today?

For Part 2 click here

Election Fraud 2019 – Scope

This post is a selected summary of the range of election fraud during GE2019. Ranging from bribes, bias, to global conspiracies. With this width we can’t go into much depth and by definition will not capture everything… but depth is recorded in links.

Brexit Party Bribes

The Metropolitan Police Service are assessing two allegations of electoral fraud, following claims made by Brexit party leader Nigel Farage that the Conservative Party had offered peerages to himself and other Brexit Party election candidates in exchange for their withdrawal from constituency seats. News article here

Mainstream Media Bias

The newspapers have a known bias (recently reinforced by Boris Johnson). But the BBC is supposedly impartial and in “purdah” during elections, but they went out of its way to edit video to make Johnson look good and not following up the Jennifer Arcuri scandal, or critical of his withholding of the “Russia Report” while also rigging the Question Time audiences.

Boris Johnson is compromised, full article here. The BBC is deliberately not reporting this and much else: see John Sweeney’s whistleblower report here. Follow twitter #BBCbias and #BBCLiesandBias for more details.

Confidence, No Ground Campaign and Surprise Win

Conservatives had no “ground game” in the north of England. BBC Newsnight clip here. On Twitter the campaign was muted with a few photo ops – but nothing like the hundreds turning out for Labour and the tens of thousands of tweets/photos on #labourdoorstep.

There were large queues of young people at polling stations. Tweet here

The Tories were confident in winning despite drop in support. Tweet here. Brexit Party thought Tories had no chance in South Wales and North. Video here

Shock win. Tweet here. Exactly as the Tories predicted: an 80 seat majority! Confounding all other political polls.

Huge swing in Bishop Auckland, for instance, (Slim Labour majority of 500 in 2017) Conservative majority of 8000 in 2019 despite large Labour ground campaign. Tweet here

The general opinion that Labour Voters were persuaded not to vote, voted LibDem or Brexity Party while the Conservative vote held up. Tweet here and here. There’s lots of analysis of why supposedly Labour Lost: not honoring the referendum, Corbyn untrusted, Marxist policies, too many policies(!) and cost.

Ian Isaac’s analysis on a DailyGasLamp comment stated “The average swing away from Labour in 2019 compared to 2017 was 8%. 1 in 8 voted Tory. 3 in 8 voted Lib Dems. 4 in 8 voted for Greens and Brexit Party and others: clearly a protest vote [with voters saying] “I’m not voting Labour this time nor will I ever vote Tory”. This was enough for 52 out of 54 Midlands and northern seats to be lost by Labour.”

Clearly the MSM condemnation of Labour and Corbyn had worked on a percentage of the population. But was it 8%? And why did the Tory vote hold up so well when many of the Tory grandees were saying “don’t vote Conservative”?

Why didn’t the Tory vote also fall (as expected by the Brexit Party and LibDems)? Was there something else?

Electoral Roll Errors and Delays

Expected voter suppression known about before the election. News article here

Cardiff students protest about Electoral Roll errors. Video here News article here

Polling cards but not on electoral roll. News article here. Tweet here

In Swindon, Civica wrongly informed 3,000 voters they were not eligible to vote. Thousands of postal votes in Waltham Forest having to be hand delivered because of the software errors. Tweet here

Postal Vote arrives 2 months late. Tweet here

Security of Ballot Concerns

Envelopes being insecure. News article here

BBC appeared to have knowledge of postal vote intentions. News article here

IDOX systems is an Election Management System Software and Service provider. Their systems are used to used to manage Postal Votes in around 80% of UK constituencies. It does not count votes but managing the requests, sending out voter packs, verifying the packs and managing the electoral rolls. Conservative Peter Lilly was a former director of IDOX – he could have passed on details to people that could then easily hack the IDOX systems. Article here. Could IDOX software be hacked to delay the postal ballot papers being sent out or suppress postal votes by selective vetting? An example of an individual case. PV arrived “too late”. Tweet here. Tweet here

IDOX could certainly provide “profile data” but why bother when UK Council websites already provide data to data collective services such as LiveRamp whose business is to “profile” people sell it to Cambridge Analytica or similar to predict voter intentions? News article here

Postal Vote Fraud

Suspected postal vote fraud in the Scottish Referendum.

Problem with postal ballots earlier in 2019 with “Lessons learned”… to ensure fraud not detected in GE? Article here

50 cases of voter impersonation. News article here “Police across the UK have been asked to investigate more than 50 allegations of electoral fraud related to Thursday’s elections in areas previously identified as vulnerable to vote-rigging…. Officers in Manchester, Bradford, London and Birmingham have begun inquiries after receiving complaints about “ghost” voters, false statements by candidates and multiple attempts to vote by a single person…. (also) Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Calderdale, Coventry, Derby, Hyndburn, Kirklees, Oldham, Pendle, Peterborough, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Walsall and Woking… (and) 14 investigations across Greater London… Police have also been asked to investigate allegations of intimidation and tampering with postal votes.”

The “Postal Vote Investigation” has collected many cases. See tweet here

Global Conspiracy

Managing a rigged election on this scale is hugely complicated. Surely it can’t be done? Only Conspiracy Theorists could possibly think that known liar and cheat, Boris Johnson, could lie, cheat and defraud his party to victory?

Well, the information associated with a global right wing conspiracy is all mainstream. See TV documentary on how total situation awareness was achieved using Big Data Analytics. Article here. Having achieved situation awareness, the options for manipulation are endless. How much of this is legal and how much is fraud? Consider the following uses for Dominic Cummings’ Voter Intention Collection System (VICS) if connected to Social Media data feeds, AI and bots:

  • Situation awareness could gauge the accuracy of polls
  • Artifical Intelligence systems could determine whether attack-ads worked and for whom
  • Determination of voter intentions direct from social media feeds. If not-one-of-us, can we stop them voting? Or if maybe one-of-us (judged by social circle), can we encourage them to vote… use of sock puppets and bots on social media can be used to encourage or discourage voter behaviour.
  • Can we delay sending postal votes here?
  • Can we impersonate voters who are not likely to vote at all?

Relationship between VL, Cummings, Mercer and Cambridge Analytica. Tweet here

Evidence for social media manipulations and the immense social media capability available to the Tories, particularly sock puppet accounts, is provided in the response to the boy-on-the-floor in Leeds Hospital fake news twitter storm.

Helped by friendly nations? Claiming credit for damaging reputations… Article here. Article on PysOps here

Over Spending

Since the Conservatives own camapign admits to breaking spending limits in the past, we have to assume that spending limits were also broken this time too. The 100,000 strong Conservative Party raised funds more the 500,000 Labour party by at least a factor of ten mainly from donations from millionaires and billionaires. Funding for elections is supposed to be strictly controlled… but will the cost of Dominic Cummings VICS system be recorded as a campaign cost? Or the cost of all the third party Corbyn attacks ads included? Unlikely.

So, was this a Rigged Election? University of Loughborough just reviewing the Mainstream Media bias says “yes“. Now add in everything else… nothing was left to chance.