Hi everyone,
I thought about posting this on the Elections thread, but I found the article to be really good and I figured it merited it's own discussion perhaps, if the mods feel otherwise, please feel free to merge it.
This is a letter by a french general named Dominique Delawarde, writing about the US elections. The original is in english but it has been translated to spanish here, I have not been able to find an English version, so I figured I'd run it through DeepL and post it here for your consideration:
I thought about posting this on the Elections thread, but I found the article to be really good and I figured it merited it's own discussion perhaps, if the mods feel otherwise, please feel free to merge it.
This is a letter by a french general named Dominique Delawarde, writing about the US elections. The original is in english but it has been translated to spanish here, I have not been able to find an English version, so I figured I'd run it through DeepL and post it here for your consideration:
Many of you have asked me my opinion about what has been happening in the United States since November 3 in the framework of the presidential election. In my dual capacity as an intelligence expert and a specialist on the subject of the United States, I have been asked numerous questions that I will summarize in two main groups.
1- Was there electoral fraud? Is the hypothesis of a coup d'état tending to reverse the election result credible?
2- If Biden were finally elected on December 8 and enthroned on January 20, 2021, what would be the consequences of his coming to power?
I will try to answer these questions clearly in the following lines.
Does the author have any conflict of interest?
It is important for each of you to know, before you begin reading this letter, if your author has any conflicts of interest that could guide your words on the topic it addresses.
My answer is no. It is true that I lived in the United States, in Kansas, under the Democratic administration (Clinton) between 1995 and 1998, a time from which I have excellent memories. I was in the United States on multiple occasions, before and after that professional episode, visiting my numerous close family - three of my sisters and 48 of their direct descendants, all American citizens and residents of different states, some governed by the Democrats and others by the Republicans. I have visited 46 of the 50 States of the Union. In the summer of 1998, I received the Meritorious Service Medal from the United States, then under Democratic administration. I am not a member of any of the major French political parties (Les Republicains, Parti Socialiste, Rassemblement National, La France Insoumise, LREM-Modem, Europe-Ecologie-Les Verts).
Although I sometimes express myself with vehement severity about American "modes of government," that severity is never directed at the American people who, like many other people, are rather generous and sincere, but are also naive and manipulated.
Today I have great reservations, even hostility, towards NATO, having observed its aberrations since 1990, in the context of my duties [1].
My experience in the field of intelligence has led me to give less and less credibility to the vast majority of press agencies and mainstream media, particularly those in the West [2].
I do not appreciate the action and/or "powerful and harmful influence of transnational pressure groups" on the functioning of the world, whether they are financial, media, community or any other kind of pressure groups.
Having made all this clear, as an author, let's move on to the topic at hand.
Pre-election context of the U.S. presidential election
Since Hillary Clinton's failure in the 2016 presidential election, the United States has been deeply divided into two irreconcilable camps that hate each other and have engaged in a struggle "to the death. Contrary to what people believe in France or Europe, these two sides are not the Republican and Democratic sides, which are only the visible parts of the iceberg. The two sides I am referring to have two opposite conceptions of the world: they are the "sovereigntists" and the "globalists". We find the representatives of the "globalists" mostly among the Democrats, but we can also find them, although in smaller proportion, among the Republicans.
On September 24, 2019, from the podium of the UN General Assembly, Donald Trump clearly chose his side, expressed his vision of the world and declared war on the globalists by declaring:
"Like my beloved country, all the nations represented in this room have a history, a culture and a legacy that they cherish and that they deserve to defend and celebrate, and that give us a particular strength and potential. The free world must embrace its "national" foundations. It must not seek to relinquish them and replace them..." [3]
Seconds later, Donald Trump added.
"If you want freedom, be proud of your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. If you want peace, love your nation. Insightful heads of state always put their own country's interests first. The future does not belong to the globalists. The future belongs to the patriots. The future belongs to independent and sovereign nations that protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and accept the differences that make each country special and unique.
It is understandable to all that such a discourse could elicit the support of a vast sector of the U.S. population, as evidenced by the more than 73 million votes for Trump counted in November 2020 - that is, 10 million more than in 2016, when he received less than 63 million votes. For all those who believed that Trump was losing support, that 15% increase is a huge surprise - just like in 2016.
It is clear that the globalist camp cannot accept this "discourse-program". So it will do everything it can to close the outgoing president's way to re-election. As the majority in the "Deep State", having control of finance and GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazone, Microsoft and Twitter), and also having control of almost all the mainstream media and the Anglo-Saxon and European press agencies, the globalist side will coordinate the action of its "armed arms" to get Donald Trump out of the US presidency.
President Trump, for his part, is neither stupid nor alone. He has very strong popular support, a majority in the Senate, in the Supreme Court, and 27 of the 50 governors of the States of the Union are Republicans. In the House of Representatives, he has just reduced by 12 seats (for now...) the advantage that the Democrats had over the Republicans. He has installed a federal administration that is mostly (not totally) loyal to him, has changed a majority of the federal judges, successfully resisted 2 attempts by the Deep State and the Democrats to remove him (the Russiagate manufactured since 2016, which ended up deflating... because it was false and the researchers, the judges and the American public ended up realizing it, and the attempt at impeachment initiated in the House of Representatives, which collapsed when it reached the Senate).
By the way, Trump showed lucidity when he said, in his last election speech, on November 2, 2020, in North Carolina: "If there is one thing I have done during my term in office, it is to expose the dishonesty of the media." [4] The mainstream U.S. media has always encouraged and supported anti-Trump actions.
It is in this context of extreme tensions and after an electoral campaign during which all possible low blows have been seen - on both sides - that the election of November 3, 2020 takes place.
Have the media and polling institutions been honest or have they tried to manipulate opinion?
The American mainstream media - as well as the European media, by the way - are not exactly known for their honesty, pluralism and fairness. Under the control of a handful of billionaires, these media defend the causes and interests of their "bosses", active members or simple collaborators of the Deep State. Anything goes, even the most blatant lies. Everything that harms the adversary is highlighted (Trump) and everything that could harm the side that wants to benefit is hidden (Biden). Journalists make a career only if they submit and/or self-censor themselves. Today we are in a situation of electoral "information war" [5]. It is very difficult for mere mortals to get information correctly [6].
For four years, these US media, perfectly supported by the European "sister" media, have been dedicating themselves, 24 hours a day, to denigrating the image of President Trump before US, Western and world public opinion. During the months before the election, they relied on widely biased polls to make the American people and the world believe - as in 2016 - that the election was "decided" and that a great Democratic wave was going to submerge the country. To cite only the example of Florida, 4 days before the election a large majority of the polls gave Biden the winner with between 1 and 5 points... but the winner was Trump by 3.4 points. The proven differences between these last polls and the result of the scrutiny are such that one cannot speak of the margin of error but of lies and manipulation, self-serving and... brazen. These polls and misleading articles were repeated in almost all the States of the Union. The results of Trump and the Republican Party on election day revealed the extent of these media lies and manipulations and of the false pre-election polls.
Is the hypothesis of major fraud in several key states credible on the day of the election?
My inner conviction tells me that it is, since there are, in my opinion, too many concordant indices that the "media" Western pack - of which we already know who controls it - can convince me otherwise. The presidents of China and Russia are not wrong to wait for official results to be proclaimed, which will not happen until December 8, before congratulating the winner, when it will be known who he really is [7].
These are the signs that make me doubt the honesty of the scrutiny.
1 - The curious and suspicious precipitation of the US media pack, immediately followed by its "sister" in the European Union - who also knows who controls it - in wanting to impose a winner when the official results of 5 or 6 states are not yet known. We all know that these US media are "partisan" and that they are Trump's fiercest adversaries. We know their method of criticizing, questioning, modifying, not recognizing, questioning all the electoral results that do not suit them around the world (like the presidential elections in Syria in 2014, Venezuela in 2018, Bolivia in 2019, and Belarus in 2020, to cite only 4). We are also aware of their tendency to want to promote, rather than impose, the candidate that suits them, regardless of the fact that that candidate only has very small support (as in the cases of France in 2017, Bolivia in 2019, and Belarus in 2020). This is also the case of Navalni, who does not strictly represent anything in Russia, and yet our media "sell" him to us as Putin's number one rival).
2 - The very unusual actions of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter censoring, in a concerted and simultaneous way, nothing more and nothing less than the President of the United States. This evident collusion of these big service companies, of which we also know who controls them, is simply not "natural" or democratic?
3 - For the first time in the history of the United States, voting by mail was used massively as more than 42% of the voters who voted did so by mail (more than 64 million), despite being recognized worldwide that this type of voting favors electoral fraud.
Voting by mail was even eliminated in France in 1975 because it was deemed conducive to electoral fraud [8].
Incidentally, it is strange that some deputies of the LREM majority [9] are now trying to re-establish postal voting in France, taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the Covid-19 epidemic [10].
Could it be that these deputies intend to increase the possibilities of fraud in France in order to achieve re-election in the next local elections?
To claim that there was not the slightest electoral fraud in the United States, with 64 million votes by correspondence, is simply not credible.
Without assuming on my own the entire set of allegations of fraud issued by the Republicans, and listed in an article reproduced in Profession Gendarme [11], I will nevertheless retain a single example-recognized by both the Democratic and Republican parties-that is therefore neither questionable nor disputed.
As she admitted to the New York Times, Abigail Bowen, the election secretary for Shiawassee County (State of Michigan), mistakenly added an extra zero to Biden's vote count. Instead of registering 15,371 votes for the Democrat, her team added 150,371 votes. Given the fact that on computer keyboards the 0 key is nowhere near the 5 key, it's odd to say it was an inadvertent error. The secretary added that she was notified of the error 20 minutes later and corrected it immediately. (Luckily someone noticed this apparently unintentional error...)
It is very good that this error has been rectified... but that raises, anyway, several questions:
How many "mistakes" out of 0 similar to this one were made, voluntarily or not?
How many such "errors" were detected, reported and corrected?
How many of these "errors" were validated at the final count?
Does a candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, then have justified reasons to request that the votes be recounted when the result is within 1% in one of the States of the Union? Is this not what is done in all democracies worthy of the name? Is it up to the media to proclaim a winner without having guaranteed results?
What I observe is that in five states classified as swing states [12], the results are in that 1% margin: these are the states of Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Nevada [13]. 13] In those five states, Trump was leading the vote, but Biden supposedly ended up ahead of him by a few thousand votes thanks to the timely, miraculous, massive and sudden arrival of mail ballots that were very, very, very favorable to him.
By now you will have understood that, in my opinion, voting by correspondence is the open door to fraud. When that vote by mail is massive, fraud can become significant and be largely sufficient to reverse a result in the 1% margin. It is infinitely unlikely that there has not been fraud. I will not speculate here on who these frauds may have favored, and I am sure that all the evidence will never be obtained. I am only saying that the "naive" mainstream American and European media, who would so much like to deny Trump the right to have the votes recounted, to have investigations opened and to have verifications made, those same media that - dealing with other countries - are so concerned with the vote counts and so easily denounce "electoral fraud", do not get carried away with all this. We knew that France and its journalists who mock the alleged loser -because his name is Trump- conveyed the image of a "mediocracy". But should they also become a "mediacracy" that tries to impose presidents on us and all that we should think, on all subjects?
Let us now turn to the second topic of my letter.
If the "globalist" Biden was elected on December 8 and enthroned on January 20, 2021, what evolution can we Europeans and the French expect for the planet?
Biden is an old man, whom everyone knows no longer enjoys all his mental faculties - next January 20th he will be 79 years old. Because of this, if Biden is elected, he will be under the influence of other people and will make his decisions solely on the advice and under the "close control" of his immediate environment, which is an emanation of the "Deep State" and made up of die-hard "globalists. It is also that environment that would have helped Biden win, so it would be that environment that would govern, in fact, the United States.
Given its "neoconservative" obedience, this environment of Biden is resolutely pro-Israeli and in favor of maintaining the absolute hegemony of the United States over the planet. An in-depth study of that environment (biographies, influences to which he submits, networks and communities of which he is a part) would be very revealing but, unfortunately, not at all surprising. In France we have the same ones. It would therefore be necessary to prepare for an intensification of the aggressive interference of the United States in the Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran), in favor of Israel, of course. But also on the borders of Russia, in the China Sea and in South America. The new government team, the armed wing of the "Deep State", will create the pretexts - even if they do not exist - and will instrumentalize the terrorist nebula, as Washington has always done in the past, to justify its acts of interference.
Trump managed to gradually and significantly reduce U.S. bombing of the planet (the U.S. used 47,000 bombs in 2017, 16,000 in 2018, 12,000 in 2019, and 928 in January and February 2020, according to the latest available data). It brought back to the US a large number of soldiers who were deployed outside the country, mainly from the Middle East. Under Trump's first term, the Western coalition killed much fewer people than under his predecessor [Democrat Barack Obama]. If a globalist team takes over the White House, that trend could be reversed starting in the spring of 2021 ... and blood would flow again. NATO still does not understand that it should-even in its own interest-stop such drifts.
The bad news is that a Biden administration would also try to involve NATO, the United Kingdom, France, and the European Union in all the dirty work that its neoconservative strategists are capable of devising [15]. The bad news for France is that its economic dependence (its debt and the CAC40) and the growing servility to the United States of the French elites, formed precisely to make them servile, will prevent it from rejecting all invitations from the United States to be part of coalitions created in defense of dubious causes.
The good news is the fact that, on both sides of the Atlantic, people are beginning to open their eyes. Whether or not it pleases our media, our politicians and our manipulated public opinion, the "sovereign" Trump increased by 15% the total votes he got in 2016. His supporters control the Supreme Court, the Senate, a majority of states, and are approaching parity in the number of seats they control in the House of Representatives. His supporters also control the U.S. countryside. The Democrats only really control the big cities.
Under these conditions, it will not be easy to govern the United States and do anything, especially considering that the U.S. economy is in decline and the debt is abysmal.
Nor will it be easy to govern a European Union whose western part is bankrupt, with populations on the verge of revolt, with declining GDPs and military budgets that will be, like it or not, inevitably affected.
Under such conditions, the wise thing to do would be to devote oneself to solving one's own problems instead of going to play the role of sheriff in other parts of the world. The wise thing would also be not to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states under the false pretext of fighting a terrorism that we ourselves have contributed greatly to creating and maintaining through our calamitous foreign policy (toward countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia, among others) and with irresponsible official positions that are insulting to dozens of countries (as in the case of the cartoons) [16].
Sooner or later, a Western coalition orchestrated by aggressive globalists will end up breaking its teeth somewhere, will be amazed at what has happened to it, will have to come down from its pedestal and be less arrogant. Then the marches, the funeral ceremonies, the noisy and ostentatious demonstrations against an enemy that we ourselves will have provoked will multiply and the peoples will have to count their dead and mourn them.
It is enough to see the "brilliant" campaign that the governments of the member countries of such coalitions have led in the so-called "war against the coronavirus" to intuit that we will not win the next one either?
