This story was shared by B.H., but I had to laugh and blog about it, and that's something, as I don't like talking about American politics very much. The reason for that is very simple: it has that hysterical-eschatological-insane asylum quality to it. In a word, it's nauseating and disgusting, as are most of the people involved with it. I have no use for the Dummycrooks whatsoever and precious little use for the do-next-to-nothing Republithugs who haven't done much of anything since the interstate system, nor done much to roll back that "big government" they're always complaining about.  Their other big success was the Civil War. Senator Taft complained about it (big government, I mean, not the Civil War) and would've done something about it, but they sidelined him, and we've been stuck with the Raw Deal ever since then. Moreover, since the 2016 election, we've been subjected to three years of Muellerism. About the only thing I have said about American politics in general, or Swamptington, D.C., is that I thought the 2016 elections were significant in one very important way, and that was that both candidates were "deep state" candidates, but that it appeared that there were now deep rifts or divisions in that deep state, such that one faction was backing one candidate (recall that strange episode with the military on President Trump's inauguration), and that another faction was backing the other(think of the "intelligence complex").

But just when you think it couldn't possibly get any more hysterical than this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump circus, something happens to rob you of all your certainty, and thrusts you into a whole new level of eschatological Angst (and make sure you're not swallowing a drink when you read this one, because it will make you spew it all over your computer screen in laughter):

Microsoft’s ElectionGuard a Trojan Horse


Now, I can think of several reasons why having Mr. Gates anywhere near our computer-rigged elections is a very bad idea:

(1) He's Bill Gates;

(2) He was a big sponsor of Common Core, trying to make more money selling computer software to the Amairikuhn quackademic edugarchy;

(3) He's trying to do the same thing here, make money at the government trough by selling computer software  (oink oink);

(4) Did I mention he's Bill - oink - Gates?

(5) Do we really want to be in the middle of voting only to read on the computer screen "Please do not turn off this computer; your update will be done soon"?  (Or maybe that's all part of the P.L.O.T.: get the voting lines to become so long while people are waiting for the latest Microcrud update to load, they'll get so frustrated and simply stay home and not vote at all, which will make the job of fabricating the acceptable results on the part of the programmers and technocrats at Microcrud so much easier);

(6) Do we really want to be turning our computer-rigged elections over to the designer of one of the worst opera-  please be patient and do not turn off your computer while we update Windows - ting systems ever?

(7) Did I mention that he's Bill Ga-please be patient and do not turn off your computer, your spyware update is being installed - tes?;

(8) While we're installing your spyware update, and you're waiting to vote, we can go ahead and give you your mandatory vaccine which you're required to have so that you can vote...

Well, you get the picture. Now, to this long litany of mercantilist globaloney billionaire busybodyism and vaccimania that is Bill Gates, add the fact that this cyber-miracle of computerized voting is being - please be patient and do not turn off your computer, your spyware update is being installed - done in conjunction with the military, and I'm sure you, gentle reader, are probably as alarmed as I am: votes can really be rigged, and the whole system can become the target of cyber attacks as well. Think of all the nightmare scenarios that could result: election results that were "unacceptable" could be quietly and truly covertly over-turned: votes could be made literally to disappear with the push of a button. Records could be falsified or erased altogether. Add to this the fact that no cyber-system has integrity or is completely secure, and elections could be altered by anyone, or endlessly contested to the extent that one would have a "de facto postponement" of installation into office of the "winner" (think Florida 2000).

Worse, down the line, why even bother about representative bodies at all, when one can have computerized voting which promises a truly participatory democracy? Why have a Congress, or a state legislature at all? Why not allow everyone to propose and vote on  every measure, and allow a megacorporation, a billionaire busybody, and the military to be the custodians of the whole thing? (After listening to "congresspersons", it's actually a tempting idea.)

Of course, there's an obvious solution here, one that is neither very expensive and wouldn't have to involve the likes of Mr. Gates or the military, and that's good old fashioned paper ballots. Of course, those old analogue methods can be hacked too and ballot boxes can be stuffed (just ask Lyndon Johnson) or go missing altogether (think Cook county, 1960), but in the main, it's much more difficult to do. We'd have to wait a couple of months before results were announced, but given the "quality" of candidates in recent years, I could live with that.

Or to put all this is Microsoftese (a dialect of busybodyism spoken outside the confines of Swampington DC):

Microsoft’s press release announcing ElectionGuard highlights its claim that its system would make elections more verifiable, secure, and auditable; be open source-based; and improve the voting experience. While all of these things sound nice enough, there is reason to believe — based on the description given by Microsoft — that some of these claims are dubious and misleading. Unfortunately, for now, analysis of ElectionGuard is restricted to Microsoft’s description of the software as it is not yet available for public examination. The ElectionGuard software kit is expected to be released later this year on the GitHub platform.

The first aspect of the “verifiable” claim relates to a voter tracking system, where each voter is given a unique tracking ID which allows them “to follow an encrypted version of the vote through the entire election process via a web portal provided by election authorities.” Voters can choose the option of confirming “that their trackers and encrypted votes accurately reflect their selections.”

Yet Microsoft notes that “once a vote is cast, neither the tracker nor any data provided through the web portal can be used to reveal the contents of the vote,” meaning that while a person can track whether their vote was counted, they cannot verify whether the content of the vote (i.e., who they voted for) is counted correctly or not. Microsoft goes on to note that only “after the election is complete” will the tracker page allow the content of the vote to be seen.

The second “verifiability” component of ElectionGuard “is an open specification – or a road map – which allows anyone to write an election verifier.” Microsoft then notes that this open specification would mean that “voters, candidates, news media and any observers can run verifiers of their own or downloaded from sources of their choosing to confirm tabulations are as reported.”


Election forensics analyst Jonathan Simon, author of CODE RED: Computerized Elections and the War on American Democracy, was not fully persuaded by the E2E-V claim. “Pardon my skepticism,” Simon told MintPress, “but I’ve read Microsoft’s ‘good news’ ElectionGuard flyer and it reminds me very much of the flyers and PR material long served up by the vendors and programmers of the current voting equipment — the very computers that IT experts discovered could be hacked by outsiders and programmed to add, delete, and shift votes by insiders.”

Simon continued:

Right now, for example, they’re hawking expensive and completely unnecessary ballot-marking devices (BMDs) that turn your votes into a barcode, a code that no voter can read or verify. Very slick but yet another level of non-transparency, another step away from public, observable vote-counting, and another vector for fraud.

Yep... what Simon said.

And ponder this one: you know they're howling with laughter in Moscow and Beijing at the thought of Gates protecting American elections.

See you -please be patient and do not turn off your computer, your spyware update is being installed - on the flip side...




  1. Now, the internal workings and capabilities of this space I know a few things about and I won’t say any more than that – no longer affiliated in any way but close to “The Ecosystem” in the tech world. The net is that the internal, very ugly underbelly of the company culture MOST OFTEN creates the worst case effects on products/processes that get released – despite any planning, oversight, or intention. This has the workings of yet another Cluster Mess of epic proportion. Cloud for them for now is a lucky distraction from the ugly, disintegrating core and once that becomes completely commoditized, there really will be nothing left. That aside, the Security Implications alone bring a word to mind …hmmmm….is it Chernobyl.

  2. wait is that the same bill gates who advocates (charitably of course) for vaccines that incidentally permanently make tens of thousands of kids in mexico and africa sterile?

    1. has anyone a memory of “american blackout” or or cynthia mckinney (the only person i’ve ever seen face down donald rumsfeld on video in congress for dyncorp’s amazing cashflow after being caught child trafficking – james corbett covered it). or years of greg palaste covering all this election fraud?

  3. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a little knowledge is something of which I have a lot! I know enough to have stopped using Microsoft products ten years ago, to assume that anything online is not secure and to believe that paper-based systems are slow, cumbersome and expensive.
    I have come across the work of Democracy Earth, which seems to offer a new, blockchain-based approach to governance. It seems interesting to me; but I don’t know enough to be able to compare/contrast with, eg, Microsoft’s approach, or paper. Perhaps other Gizars can? IIRC, Russia and at least one African country have already used the technology.

  4. Ultimate oxymoron: Microsoft’s “Defending Democracy” program…

    The only way this country will ever possibly have accurate (in the sense of what is voted is what is revealed) elections is to go the Battlestar Galactica route: NOTHING ELECTRONIC.

    My ideal election scenario would be to have everything on-paper (paper trail) and everything counted by-hand by humans. Every single step along the way would be ‘supervised’ by three humans: one Democrat, one Republican, and one Independent (in multiples, as needed). First, the raw voting-tally of paper votes (with all three types at one table) at a local level. Then, a ‘task force’ (with all three types) to make sure that box of votes got to where it needed to be; untouched. (Lots of eyes.) Then, further up the consolidation ladder. Human eyes (of all three types) everywhere. All the way to the top, with crime-scene “evidence trail” thoroughness. And then, the final tally read on-air by all three types. What you voted is what you got…

    (And sure, it would be a hundred times more expensive and a hundred times slower. Such is the price of real-world voting….)

    I also believe in (honest) inst1tutions. The average citizen is probably not an expert in most areas. The average citizen is probably more short-term sighted than long-term thinking. The average citizen is more bread-and-circuses focused than building-the-(real)-economy focused. The average citizen does not want to spend the massive amount of time to vote (in an educated way) on thousands of issues. Etc. (Honest) inst1tutions are meant to take-up this slack…

    (On Microsoft’s “Defending Democracy” program, does anyone believe that the individual voter’s ‘picks’ would not be identifiable to national alphabet agencies, rogue Middle East country’s agents, wetware teams, etc.? This “program” could easily be a way to assemble a threat list in real time…)

    1. g, assembling a threat list in real time is the only reason for such a program.

      i remember being indignant at the boldness during bush v gore. (and every election since)

      i remember checking into that so young internet and finding that exit polls in amerika were all off by huge amounts. seemed like folks leaving polling stations were all ashamed of their votes and lied. read some pap about how digital voting is more reliable and quicker and on and on.

      odd think. that same year german elections were held all paper. exit polls were accurate within tenths of a percent and all finished and announced that night. paper count was done later and confirmed exit polls. later. everyone knew results that night. exit polls had been at least that accurate since, um forever. ahh those crazy germans. always so backwards and anti-tech. so amish. they couldn’t engineer a decent car if they had to. hmm wonder what immigrants did all that work on vw, porsche, bmw, mb,…………………………………?

  5. Problem-Reaction-Solution.
    Remember what kicked all of this off in earnest.
    The (s)election of Trojan Trump. And all the circus&theater we’ve been witnessing ever since.

      1. zdb, that depends which “Q” you’re referring to.
        Never had faith in the on-line (you know what I mean) one. Never went there.
        The other more ancient one(s), not so sure. Just need to strip away the religious overtones.

  6. Microsoft surely has advanced since the pre millenium blue screen of death (often triggered by an out of virtual memory error even though the swap file was not filled up)…
    American voters can now be looking forward to the red white and blue screen of death. dot gif
    Ziosoft Micro votes-that-matter-not enterprises: we have your back doors covered.
    open Source Gates? show us your genes!

    1. I have to admit.
      I could not stomach reading the whole
      of what microsoftese spewed out.

      Suffice to say Bill Gates’ empire is simply a continuation of the ongoing 500 yrs of colonization. The new Christian religion went advance to the abiotic-fuel age of industrial capitalism; to the digital data age, the new anointed lubricant of the debt-based moneyed cartel. Technologies are now more than tools; they’re instrument$ of power & control. A means to construct a false narrative of our relationship to the natural world and society, eclipsing nature’s creativity and productivity. Technological fundamentalism inverts the meaning of reaching higher ecological, ethical, social and human ends. The deployment of these industrial/data technologies becomes and end in themselves, a new religion.
      So those, that for example, calling for a scientific assessment to challenge Gates’ ElectionGuard will be declared anti-science. This is religious fundamentalism, not rational scientific debates.

      1. RB, spot on.
        I’ve said it before, Science&Technology is the new religion.
        Stick someone into a white coat and we’re supposed to grovel at their feet, kiss&wipe them. Don’t ask questions, just believe&accept.
        Most “science” is a fraud. Most technology is designed&implemented for full-spectrum control&surveillance.

        1. journals dot plos dot org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

          Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
          John P. A. Ioannidis
          Published: August 30, 2005

  7. ElectionGuard
    Well you do have to laugh-out-loud at the truly Orwellian terminology. Matter of fact, it would make a great example in a new Oxford dictionary of the term Trojan horse.

  8. Dr. Farrell is correct in saying this is a moment for one collective “Duh!”

    Bill Gates is not stupid. The Open Source component he’s talking about would be free to all for use and inspection. I assure you that component will be surrounded by many layers of proprietary software–which is precisely the place where all data manipulation for rigging the elections would be stored. This idea is as bad as the digital currency idea. I know why advocates want this outcome, but I also know it’s the easiest game to rig in town. All data is a stream of digital information held within a media. Once loaded into electrical form it can be manipulated for both honest and dishonest reasons using proprietary data engines. As a veteran in the software side of computing, the lessons learned from the PROMIS software has given me room for pause many, many times. Because of controversy that is PROMIS, we now have delivery (of the promise) to intercept, intervene, collect and redefine any form of electronic data for covert operations by “intelligence” communities of many stripes. Why would elections be any different? We may NOT have had a say in the PROMIS decision, but we as a culture DO have a say about our voting methods. [1] Verifiable election mechanisms are imperative to a representative political system. Without them there is no representation–thus no real voice in governance. If the EU is a bad idea, electronic voting is even worse.

    End Notes:
    [1] The capitalized words “NOT” and “DO” should not be construed as shouting. They are capitalized for emphasis only. Unfortunately there is no easy way to emphasize anything using this method.

    1. Even if the digital world was open source (and boy I wish it were), PROMIS changed the dynamic for me. As long as there are companies who will design software for the purposes PROMIS was written, and as long as governments and agencies will steal that software without due compensation for national security interests, I will remain fully, completely and permanently skeptical. Because PROMIS was written I’m certain there are other applications in existence that fulfill the type of functions the Deep State desires for covert operations. Why would a voting system be immune? Though I share your sentiments and am inclined to agree with the hypothesis, experience has taught me otherwise. The real monsters are those without a moral compass exercising restraint from interference when given the chance. This is one where the PTB have a vested interest to interfere.

      1. OriginsChild
        I too began to suspect, & subsequently verify that the security of the internet is null & void. For example, ex-Cia Robert Steele’s Open Source Manifesto.
        There it is…
        or should I say, NOT!

    2. Having said the above, yes, I am certain that Linux would not be immune from covert influence. All it takes is one none “Open Source” layer as a requirement for approval. Such is the issue of PROMIS (and all its children.)

      1. OriginsChild, no doubt about it. There is a lot of “Private Corporation” influence of just about any Linux flavour you could mention, certainly the bigger ones, i.e. the one referring to a certain colour of head wear (not in the Doc’s arsenal as far as I’m aware.. :-)).
        I have no doubt that these corporations have some level of “outside” influence that steers their R&D, not to mention a supply of funding.
        Even take the Firefox web browser as another example. It’s no secret the Mozilla Foundation received funding from Google.
        Github (where so-called “Open Source” development takes place) would be another example.

        Moral: Always follow the money.

  9. I would trust the Russians before I would trust Microsoft…
    Windoze 10 is some of the worst malware, masquerading as an operating system, out there. I prefer Knoppix 8.1 over any Microsoft “product”.

Comments are closed.