V2 Conspiracy and fraud in the US elections

Conspiracy and fraud in the US elections. What is next?

(Second version. September 23, 2021)

Felipe Pérez-Martí @Sabiens

Summary

The purpose of this essay is to show that the United States has been contaminated with “rentism”, a more dangerous variant of the Venezuelan “curse of abundance” mortal virus. With the presidential election fraud, which will be shown to have occurred, the illness is in its initial state and, given its known dynamics, it will not be easy to stop a converging process to a full-fledged stage that encompases the whole nation, ending the democratic republic in that nation.

I start by proving my claim of conspiracy and fraud using Agency Theory and Signaling Games, powerful economics tools that allow us to make inferences about unobserved variables (fraud, conspiracy) using observed variables (public performance by Joe Biden and Donald Trump). I then answer some key questions regarding the plausibility of the conspiracy theory and that of electoral fraud being committed.

I then address the issue of a change of system in the US: from a democratic republic, in which there is rule of law, to a rentistic country, a de facto regime with an international mafia cartel moving the threads of politics and public institutions. I stress the fact that in this new gen war and new gen dictatorial regimes, the cultural tools of mind control and manipulation of the people are the most determinant weapons.

I praise the work of private citizens like Mike Lindell and Sydney Powell who, together with the Maricopa County officials, have set the example of a game changing forensic and cyber audit of the 2020 elections. That bases my claim that the US still has a great force at the peoples level and also at the institutional level, to reverse the convergence to rentism. I stress that this is a worldwide and spiritual battle, and foresee unity of the people at those vital battlegrounds too.

Introduction

It is natural that the leaders of a conspiracy and many of their followers would not admit their faults in public, and to require that the US people take them as innocent until proven otherwise in court. They even attack the people, not only their ideas, who dare to put this in doubt. Here I prove why, if we follow the scientific method applied to business administration and to politics, the political agents accused of conspiracy in our case are guilty of fraud even without a court ruling: they are guilty until proven innocent. This might seem outrageous to many people, in particular to the democratic party and even to many republicans. But, as I show, it is the main foundation of a representative democracy. Of course that the presumption of innocence principle applies to all citizens and private organizations. But politicians, public institutions and private firms like Dominion who participate in political elections, are completely different subjects in a political trial, which is different, although related to, a legal one. The strange thing, and symptomatic for us regarding the lack of a strong democratic culture at this moment, is that we believe the opposite due to the influence of the media and other cultural mechanisms, and that we have accepted it as something fair, politically correct, when it comes from a doctrine that harms the citizens, it is unfair and inefficient, and benefits their enemies: the rent-seekers and its political puppets.

As an example of the above, the crux of the first amendment to the United States Constitution, freedom of speech, is based on the fact that all politicians and public institutions are guilty until proven innocent. This is consistent with the optimal, as we will show, which places the burden of proof about their innocence on politicians and public institutions, not on citizens. In other words, the constitution and the foundations of the scientific method allow a citizen to criticize a politician or public institution and label them corrupt, for example, even without proof.

That allows us to conclude that what a judge did to accept the opening of a libel suit for defamation, petitioned by Dominion against Michael Lindell, Sidney Powell and Rudy Guiliani, is unconstitutional. It represents a terrible precedent of an attack against the most fundamental political rights of the citizens in a democracy. To put the burden of proof in the shoulders of a citizen contradicts the very foundation of democracy.

Dominion, although a private firm, is being judged by the people for its actions on the public realm and, because of that, is also guilty until proven innocent, as we will show here. It has the burden of proof, as our arguments will make clear. And with more reason, since it is their obligation to consumers as a private company in a market that works, in which there is competition and no market power, as can be seen in this case, which points to an alliance, illegal as well as inefficient for the society, of a private company with certain politicians.The ruling of this judge, therefore, grants even more power to the powerful and deprives citizens of the defense that public institutions should make of their rights, since they are in a weaker position due to the operation of the representative democracy system. The judge with this strips citizens of their property rights over the republic.

It is worth noting the exact coincidence in time between the judge's decision and the Cyber Symposium organized by Mike Lindell. Given that the Economy studies incentives, this fact points to an additional mafia practice in that sense: it has incentives to intimidate people who dare to confront them and use it as a general example. It also indicates a reason to investigate the motives, the incentives, of the judge in question.

As we will see in this paper, that is what happens in countries infected with rentism, a variation of the Curse of Abundance deadly virus that has killed democracies in countries like Venezuela: the cartel of rent-seekers captures, through mafia practices not only the executive branch of power, using the people in charge as puppets, but the remaining public powers: the Justice system and the legislative bodies. It also rigs the elections, captures the media and many other public and private institutions, using rentistic populism too, in order to induce the people, specially the underdog, the underprivileged, the discriminated (like black, poor, women, gay, workers) to vote for their candidates.

An interesting inference that our analysis allows us to reach, based on Signaling Games, is that the willingness of Mike Lindell and Sidney Powell to present proof of their assertions shows that they are heroes of the people. That heroic attitude, fed by religious believes and/or patriotic sentiments, is what might be able to stop the Deep State from capturing the whole nation and the whole world, since, as we will see, rentism does not stop with the presidency in a country: it wants the whole pie, both all public and even private institutions, an the servitude of the vast majority of the population, using their conquered spaces more and more.

As it will be made clear with some detail, the claim conspirators maintain regarding the lack of evidence of fraud in the US and the false inference that it is what clears them from suspicion, is based in the use of the fallacy of ignorance: “since fraud has not been proven to be true, it is false”. We will show that it is false and that it has the objective of shifting the burden of proof to their opponents, the people, while they use their mafia-like tools to make it impossible for the people to produce the proof. They base their arguments, for example, on the fact that the Attorney General William Barr, and some courts, have said that they did not find significant proof. Contrary to that, what is clear at this moment is that almost all attempts to prove fraud in court were not carried out by the public institutions that are supposed to do that, like the Department of Justice itself and the FBI. Some of those attempts were dismissed on procedural grounds, for example at the national Supreme Court level.

That is why the courts have so far not been able to examine the evidence, really, since the burden of proof has not been assumed by the entities prepared for it given their function, with their logistical and professional capacity. As I will argue here, the justice system has failed the country, and some private citizens, notably Sidney Powell and Michael Lindell, have tried to fill in that void. Forensic audits starting in Maricopa county are in the process of establishing the truth.

At this time, most of the media have said that it was verified that Biden triumphed, because they make you believe that the important thing is the count of the total votes. But they have hidden that the audit showed that a percentage of votes determining for Biden's triumph have fundamental flaws, which invalidates the result, since it establishes a reasonable doubt in the face of the public, at least, of the result. So, importantly, the question is no longer just about Biden, as a politician, but about the electoral system. Normally, if the electoral system is reliable, the politician does not have to prove that there was no fraud. But in this case yes, as we will see here.

If the fraud is verified in Maricopa, for example, I will show that there are incentives for this to spiral, since the evidence is quite similar all over the place, as we argue below regarding a common pattern observed at the lower echelons of the claimed pyramidal conspiracy. It is false, then, that the fraud claim was found to be wrong, even in the presence of some negative outcomes in the courts of law. What is certain is that fraud is a very real possibility, and we are in a war between truth and lies in this matter. Here we will use in a crucial way to identify which side the politicians take, whether of transparency to reveal the truth, or of the obstruction of the investigation in this regard. That will give us the political verdict, while the empirical evidence is finished verifying, on whether they are guilty or not, and whether there was fraud or not.

Michael Lindell and many other people claim that there was a conspiracy to “cancel” the truth on the matter of evidence, which consisted in hiding it from mediatic and Internet exposure, on the one hand, and also to attack the prestige and interests of the citizens, whistleblowers and leaders objecting to the election process. That involved the FBI (who harassed whistleblowers instead of investigating the allegations), the Department of Justice, and the Homeland Security Department, besides many State and County level officials of both parties. That claim is consistent with the theory we present here. This is like a murder case carried out by a drug mafia cartel: they want to erase the the incriminating evidence and silence the witnesses, buying in the process some key governmenet officials of the police, national and local congreses and judiciary system. My take is that truth will prevail. No doubt in my mind about it, and I will try humbly to contribute here to this endeavor with my capabilities: economic theory and political experience in Venezuela.

Finally, and to enter into the matter, our exercise can be taken as a theoretical simulation that guides us for political and legal action, giving us a correct interpretation of reality, since an adequate remedy, an adequate political strategy, is based on an adequate diagnosis .

Can we condemn the conspirators for fraud without a court trial?

In this section I perform a simulated citizens political trial using two economics tools: the Principal-Agent theory, and Signaling Games. It requires an explanatory introduction to lay the foundations of the method used: the scientific one and its application to politics.

The option of a people’s political trial and the scientific method.

It turns out that the economic profession has developed powerful methods to make inferences based on observed variables when people have to make decisions about non observable or purposefully hidden variables, like corruption. Those tools are applied in business administration, where similar situations are an everyday occurrence, and they are intimately related to the methodology natural and social sciences use in order to look for practical truth. For that matter, even in natural sciences you never claim to have the whole truth, but to count on the best theory available so far about reality. The falsificationist method allows humans to produce better theories when the current one, taken as the status quo of knowledge, is found to have trouble explaining new evidence. Absolute proof is really not observable, but you can learn more and more about it using that method. For that you formulate an alternative to the “null hypothesis”, the theory accepted as the status quo, when you want to explain evidence not available before.

In fact, that method is used in court trials too to decide if an accused person is guilty or innocent. The null hypothesis is that of innocence. If there are indications, presented by the accusers, to doubt that, the court, following legal procedures, admits to having a trial, in which a thorough search for the possible evidence is encouraged. If in the process of evaluating that evidence, the judge and/or the jury finds that it is convincing, also looking at the arguments of the defense, it adopts the new theory as the status quo of society: the person is guilty.

But, as even in science, there are always the possibility of errors in that decision, which are of two kinds: The “type I” error happens when the court condemns an innocent person (the alternative hypothesis is accepted when the null one was really true), while the “type II” error occurs when a criminal is acquitted (the null hypothesis is accepted when the alternative one was really true). To minimize the probability of those errors, the court has the mandate to examine very carefully the evidence in order to make the final decision, and sides with the status quo if it is not convincing enough, meaning that the probability of error I is too high to admit the alternative hypothesis of guilt. That is why the party of the conflict which proposes the alternative hypothesis, the accuser, has the burden of proof in a natural way, the same as the scientist who challenges the status quo has to prove his claim with enough evidence that matches his new theory. It has to be convincing enough to give up on the status quo theory. It is to notice here that an important number of the jury in our political trial case, the US citizens, do not find it convincing that Biden won this election. In natural and social sciences, a type I error bigger than 10% is not usually acceptable. The usual number is 5%.

The same happens in business administration. It should happen in politics too, but too often, as in our case, it does not occur, as we will see here, which in itself is a sign of something very important: this is not normal, much less optimal. And now comes the surprise: as we will show, the null hypothesis in politics is that both, Biden and Trump, as well as any politician and public institutions or private companies performing a public job, like Dominion, are guilty unless proven innocent. And all of them have the burden of proof. If Joe Biden, our main case in this essay, does not provide enough evidence that there was no fraud, the people should continue to suspect that he is guilty. The same happens to Dominion and similar companies who participated in the elections.

Since Joe Biden was inaugurated as President, most of the courts have not admitted the cases for an electoral fraud trial, either because of procedural decisions, or because the side that claims fraud did not have enough preparation to prove the case. Now, as it might seem odd, again, to many people, but according to what we have said, the ones who should have initiated the case against the accusation of fraud, are Biden and his camp. Recall what was said in the introduction about forensic audit evidence in Maricopa County.

This is probably seen by many as extreme, but, as we will be ilustrate in the case of Dominion using the marketplace example,it is common and healthy practice, and although what has happened seems normal to many, perhaps because it has been the case for some time, it strengthens the idea even more that democracy is not working in the US.

In any case, and given the failure of the justice system, we then appeal to the people for a simulated political trial, using the mentioned economics tools that allow inferences even in the worst possible scenario: if the actual evidence of fraud is not used directly in the final verdict. The observed variables are the public performances of the politicians, countries and institutions being judged by the people. Even though, again, there is evidence that clearly signals fraud and conspiracy and we will use them to strengthen our main conclusions, here we will go to the extreme to prove our points and take those variables of actual corruption as unobservable.

The democratic party followers, in order to accept our arguments, only have to realize that, in general, there is a clear correlation between corruption and public attempts to hide it, on the one hand. On the other, there is a clear correlation between innocence and observable willingness to be transparent. Those correlations are a required condition in scientific practices in order to be able to replicate and be able to establish as the new standard a new theory proposed to overturn the status quo one, and in business administration and economics in general for an agreement, called a contract, when asymmetric information is present between the players involved. In politics under democracy, that is what a social contract requires, a Constitution. Otherwise, we face a situation where the use of force, and not mutual agreement, is what rules. That establishes the rule of law vs rule of force for matters of justice and human interaction in a society.

The two Economics models that I find to be useful in this situation are, again, the Agency Problem and Signaling Games. The first one to show what the null hypothesis is, which will reveal who has the burden of proof here. The second model will show, using theoretical and political inference, that Biden turns out to be guilty of conspiracy and fraud, and is the loser of this election, while Trump turns out to be innocent and the winner of the presidency.

The Principal, the people; the Agents, the politicians.

Regarding the first issue, citizens and politicians are placed on opposite sides of the principal vs agent contradiction. What separates those players is the presence of asymmetric information they have about the topic at hand. A dentist, for example, knows more than the client about the true problem present in the teeth of the patient; a CEO knows more about his work effort than the company owners; an applicant for a job knows more about what his abilities are than an employer. And so on. In our case, the politician knows more than the citizens about what his true intentions are and about the kind of management he makes in private about the public matter. That is why the patient, the company owners and the employer (the principals) want to see good references, based on performance, in order to hire the dentist, the CEO and a job applicant, respectively (the agents).

This implies that, like the dentist, the CEO and the job applicant have to demonstrate, by their actual performance, that they are well trained, the politicians have the burden of proof in a political trial made by the people. So, the null hypothesis in our cases is the guilty presumption for dentists, job applicants, CEOs and politicians, since it does not make sense for their principals to start assuming that they are capable without knowing them beforehand. And to know them they must have information about them, not only by their words, but by real empirical evidence: reliable references and performance observable by their principals.

If someone claims that he has a better alternative than the current standard, the null hypothesis, he has to prove that that status quo is false (in our cases, Biden has to prove that there was no fraud, and Trump that he is not bluffing), and provide then the alternative (that Biden is innocent and Trump is not lying) as plausible, given the available evidence presented by them. And that is why the saying that "Caesar's wife should appear honest, not just be" applies to politicians: she must be above suspicion, shown by her public behaviour, for the citizens (the principals in political issues, assuming there is democracy) to trust her.

So, what should really be outrageous, if democracy worked in that country, is what most US citizens, even some pro-Trump voters, believe: that the people have to produce proof of fraud in these elections in order to demonstrate that Joe Biden is guilty, when he is the one that has to demonstrate his innocence, given that both the electoral system and the justice system are also under suspicion. If he wants to rid his name of suspicion, he must prove that he is innocent. Not the other way around.

In Trump's case, he's willing to show, given the chance, that he's not lying, through submitting to the verdict of forensic audits in each county, for example, or through cyber forensic audits. On Biden’s side, Trump's attitude might seem costless. But in this case the result would mortally harm him as a politician, especially since he has not acknowledged his defeat and has not conceded Biden the victory. In fact, most of the media are already calling him a liar and a dictator for not accepting democratic rules, not accepting the verdict of a vote. They have advanced the theory that he is knowingly lying, just to maintain his popularity with the Republican people heading into the next election. But this theory is unsupported if he is willing to see himself as a liar if there are forensic audits and, if it is true that he is lying knowingly, the consequences for a politician should be devastating if a democratic system works, as we will see more clearly in the signaling games section. The reason is that even republican people would not elect a liar, even if he is republican. In a primary, for example, that would be devastating for him.

Coming back to the Joe Biden’s case, his attitude transgresses the basic principle normal in sales, hiring, etc that should be natural too in a representative democracy, as we have seen: An applicant for a job can not pretend that it is the firm’s owners who have to show that he is capable and then hire him. In that tenor, the Biden’s camp go to the extreme of using the fallacy of ignorance: since fraud has not been proven to be true, we have to conclude that it is false. In other words, since the job applicant has not been proven incapable, we have to conclude that he is capable, so that the employer has to hire him or her. Isn’t it outrageous? But that is exactly what is going on here, to the surprise of many people: something is wrong with their minds, then, and we will talk about that too when we address the cultural aspects of this political conflict. To finish clarifying what has been said in relation to the fallacy of ignorance, in strictly logical terms, this fallacy is always false. If something has not been proven true, it is not necessarily false: It might be that the proof has not appeared yet. But in science and in a trial, be it in court or from the people, the argument is false, but only up to a requirement related to who has the burden of proof. The social and scientific convention is that, for the null hypothesis, it is true unless it is proven false. In the case of a court trial, a citizen is innocent unless proven guilty, since the accuser has the burden of proof.

What we have shown is that for a politician, it is natural, and optimal, for the people to assume that they are corrupt unless the politician in question shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is or she is honest. In our electoral case, it must be assumed that there was fraud unless Biden's side proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was not. The reason is that Biden must bear the burden of proof, as we have shown. If the electoral and justice system worked, that wouldn't be necessary, really. But in this case, and as I have said, the doubt remains for many of the jury, the people, who for that reason should side, and in fact do, as expected, with the null hypothesis, of the guilty verdict. Let us now take a closer look at the signs that the justice system and the electoral system are failing the people.

Is the justice system in the US failing the people?

It is important to state that the political trial now, after the election, is about the suspicion of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, not about the competition between Biden and Trump regarding who is the best alternative to be chosen as the agent of the people in the US Presidency. The trial in which people compare both candidates and decide is over, since the votes, the judgment of the people, the jury in that political trial to choose the agent, are already casted. So, the people now judge each suspect separately, not in the same election or judgement event. This is not a light matter, for many people tend to be biased in favor of one or the other when judging about election fraud. For example, if a Trump fan sustains publicly that there was fraud, while not believing that claim is true, is at fault. Because he or she is acting against the republic. That person has to respect the will of the people. If the majority elected Biden, he would be the President, and everybody should recognize that. The same for Biden supporters if Trump was really elected. Otherwise they are going to be acting against themselves. If there is no democracy with its rule of law, all citizens, democrat or republican, get hurt.

Coming back to our examples from economics, the election of a President is like the election of a CEO in a company. The electoral system is like a committee named to count the votes of the shareholders. If there is suspicion of fraud among the owners, not only the suspect candidate for agent is involved. The electoral system is so too, since for some reason it might favor one of the candidates against the other. Sometimes there is a disciplinary committee, related to Human Resources, which rules about the performance, in particular possible faults, of such an electoral body. The Human Resources department, then, can be thought of as the system that rules about selecting candidates for the company, and to control the selection committees.

In this sense, if there are doubts of the people regarding the election of the President of a nation, the justice system should itself be thought of as representing the interests of the people in that matter, if there is democracy, since the people are the owners, the shareholders here, and they want justice to prevail regarding their will to choose their political agent. The justice system is supposed to be equipped to guarantee that for them. In particular, private citizens do not have the logistics and the expertise to do that. Tax payers pay the justice system to do it, and private citizens doing that with their own resources is a worrying signal of a failure of the justice system. Once elections have occurred, they have the obligation, in the new case, to take a look if the electoral committee, including private firms performing a public job, like Dominion, are suspected to have failed to reflect the will of the owners. And the suspicion is quite big, judging by the polls in that regard.

With this framework in mind we can now address the issues of technical procedures and the admission of evidence mentioned before. When there is a conflict between two players in court, it is natural for the defendant to avoid incriminating evidence to be admitted in the trial, and to go to extremes to detect procedural failures in the accuser in order to dismiss the case. The accuser, on the other hand, would push for evidence to be admitted, and to avoid procedural errors.

Now, as we have established, the accuser, being the party that has the burden of proof, is Biden himself. But as we have shown in this section, there is another accuser, who should also have the burden of proof in their specific, related, case: electoral system, including firms like Dominion, in probable collusion with Joe Biden. Those two parties would be the ones calling for the case to be open in the judiciary system in order to prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt. So, It is completely odd from the economic, political and justice principles points of views that they are precisely the parties involved in avoiding the evidence to be admitted for the trial, and to place obstacle after obstacle in the way regarding procedures initiated by the US citizens who have initiated, using their own resources, the trial attempts. Dominion goes to the extreme of pressing charges in court against people like Mike Lindell and Sidney Powell, for trying to shed light regarding the electoral procedures and results.

Like an applicant for a job, Biden has to face every single possible stain in his curriculum that comes out before the employers, since he wants to clear his name. His enemy is the presumption, even the suspicion, of guilt, in the minds of the people: his alter self who is under suspicion, like in the case of a job applicant. Same for Dominion, the private company which would like to have a clear image before their customers. But they are acting completely opposite to this, which immediately produces suspicion. And condemnation by the people, as we will continue to show.

The parties within the justice system representing the interests of the people in these matters should include the DOJ, FBI. The CIA too, since matters of international intelligence are involved. Also the courts themselves, since the electoral system is also under suspicion. If Joe Biden, DOJ, FBI, CIA, and the courts are avoiding the evidence, placing procedural obstacles, and avoiding opening the case, they are placing themselves directly against the people: as their enemy, and the usurper of their power. Joe Biden and its direct and indirect supporters are acting like a job applicant who, instead of attempting to clear the minds of the employers from doubts and suspicion, hires himself against their will. This indicates, as it is clear from this analysis, that he has support inside the firm against the owners, since this is not a transaction based on the will of the traders, the applicant and the company, but on the brute force of one of them. In our case, the support comes from the conspirators described below, and by the arguments given here, the public institutions mentioned, and private firms like Dominion are under suspicion of being part of it. Directly or indirectly; knowingly or unknowingly.

On top of this, the fact that the Joe Biden camp, in particular the MSM, insists that the issue is who is better or worse, Biden or Trump, and not if there was fraud or not, is an additional indication that they do not want to face the people and try to win in their favor, and that tactic is a diversion tactic in this war, which is now clearly seen as a de facto fight, instead of a de jury one.

Assume now that the justice system is not part of the conspiracy. What we have seen then, besides the bad political opinions about Joe Biden of an important part of the population, is that the justice system is not prepared to deal with situations like this to the extent of allowing an enemy of the people to use it in its favor and against the people. That is why the responsibility of the SCOTUS is crucial here, since this kind of situation, which is extraordinary, merits invoking the constitutional principle of “necessitas”. This principle applies when an authority fails to perform its duty to a degree of subverting the peace guaranteed by the social contract supposed to be in place, and the people have the right of rebellion against it, and is perfectly predictable by the theory. That principle is applied when the rule of law is not holding. So what we have described is a worrying signal that the democratic system in the US is failing, and it is not prepared to deal with out of the ordinary situations like this that put in peril the very nature of the democratic republic. The current attempts of rebellion we see in some people, or secession of some states we observe, is understandable.

Since the case of SCOTUS is emblematic, I will highlight, using economic theory, that what it has done turns out to be wrong from the point of view of national justice. The court argued that Pennsylvania and the other accused States had autonomy regarding the electoral process. But in economics we know the implications of “negative externalities”, which show that autonomy in this case does not make sense. If a neighbor plays the trumpet too loudly, you have the right to ask the authorities to make him behave. The principle that he has autonomy regarding what he does at home is overridden if those decisions negatively affect other homes around him. The authorities might doubt your motives when you denounce the trumpet player, but if not only you, but other neighbors complain about the unpleasant noise, they have the obligation to look at the evidence; to open the case and investigate who is right. The proper thing to do for SCOTUS was to think out of the box, since this a novel and crucially historic situation in US history (and whole world too, as we argue here, since this illness is contagious at that level after the US falls ill), open the case, and if necessary, produce new jurisprudence, based on the national constitution, given the national implications at hand.

The conclusion in this section is that, if only citizens and politicians without the proper resources and support from other public institutions to investigate, have the burden of proof, not much can be done in order to administer justice here, in particular when the powerful have plenty of resources used to defend themselves against the people, and even to attack their persons and their prestige. Using the public institutions and the law in a crooked way, like mafias do. The justice system is failing badly to the people and to the nation (and to the world). As we say below, this might change, since there are still patriots and institutions in the US fighting back.

The signals confirm that Biden is guilty and Trump is innocent. Trump is the legitimate President.

We now are prepared for the final step of the direct political trial by the people, using their right of opinion in a democracy. For the final theoretical argument we use the second economic model, signaling games. The game, and the conclusions here, are explained in a companion technical paper “Biden has abandoned democracy”. As we can see there, the key here is that the conspirators are unable to assume the costs of being transparent, but the Trump camp is. On the other hand, the Trump camp is unable to produce evidence of fraud if it is not true. In fact, in this framework too, if the Joe Biden camp really were not guilty, instead of attacking Trump’s supporters and putting them into the defensive, they, as a convincing signal to the people, would have been the most active promoters of the revision of the evidence as we saw using the previous model. More precisely now, the only way for Biden's side to avoid significant shades of doubt that stain the results and their credibility, and his tenure as well, was to assume the risk of being proven wrong in court as a “costly signal”, to the significant majority of the US citizens, as it is called in signaling games. That is the only thing which would clearly separate the Biden camp from the alleged liar, Donald Trump. The reason for that “separating equilibrium” in this signaling game is simple: Trump is not able, even if he wants to, to provide proof of fraud if it does not exist, since it would be too costly to “produce it”. It is basically impossible to buy, fool or violently force everybody involved, etc.

To summarize the Biden case simulating the two models, even before the electoral results, he is guilty, as a politician, in the eyes of the people, and that is the hypothesis to be tested by his actions. Secondly, the persistent, coordinated and adamant attempts by Biden, the democratic party, the MSM, Big Tech companies, Dominion and the conspirators at the political sector, including some republicans, to “cancel” not only the pursuit for truth, but the whistleblowers, from the US people, confirm that the initial hypothesis is true.

Notice that it is not so only in the minds of the republican people. Also in the minds of Biden grassroots followers when they realize the implications at hand. There are polls now that say 40% of democrats believe the election was rigged. The simple claim that Joe Biden is innocent is what is called in those theories a ``cheap talk” signal, and what it does is the opposite to the intended purpose: it is taken in the political trial as a performance that confirms the initial guilty hypothesis. If the patriots are able to reach for the fooled US citizens, an early end of the honeymoon with the grassroots democrats is to be expected given those signals by Joe Biden, on top of the many disappointments they have experienced already, like Afghanistan, the economy and border issues.

The case of China

The same kind of argument goes for China involvement. On this matter, and taking into account the information given by Michael Lindell, Biden’s supporters might claim that it is very difficult to detect the real IP address of a computer, since you might use a VPN to mask it. But the fact that the US patriotic hackers claim that they have detected all the other elements of the fraud, including the detailed number of voters changed, and are willing to produce sworn affidavits on the matter, sets the case for the people to open the political case against that foreign country. In particular since it has huge incentives to be involved in this matter in that way: for them it is a matter of billions of dollars they save if Biden, and not Trump, is in charge. So, Joe Biden and his team have the burden of proof here too.

The case of Donald Trump: is he bluffing regarding the claim of fraud?

Now, Trump, as a politician, is also subject to suspicion in a democracy using the same commented Caesar's wife principle, and might be confirmed guilty because his claim of fraud might be a bluff. But the fact that he was willing to present the evidence in court and to face the verdict, even if it would be against him, is in itself a costly signal, which clearly separates him from Joe Biden.

Sidney Powell and Michael Lindell are not liars but heroes

For the same kind of reasons, even though they support Trump, the attitude of Michael Lindell and Sidney Powell will have the sympathy of the people, who are the final judges in a political trial, at least if the US democracy still works. They are not politicians, but simple citizens and advocates of the people's rights, making an effort to reveal the truth at a huge personal cost, and to ask for court trials on the matter, even when they, as we explained, have not really the burden of proof. They play, together with many other volunteers, the role of a proper volunteer committee chosen by the owners of the firm in order to check for the election of the CEO candidates. That greatly favors Trump in what is to come if the patriots succeed, as I am sure it will happen, in the war that is in full development at this very moment.

There has been a vicious attack performed by the MSM on Sidney Powell and Michael Lindell because of their actions in this regard. In particular Dominion has accused them in court of alleged defamation. As Ms. Powell and Mr. Lindel Lawyers have stated in their legal language, they, as citizens, have the right of free speech: the right to perform a personal political trial on politicians, public institutions, and the electoral system. In particular, Dominion, part of that system. And they do not have the burden of proof, as I have demonstrated. They pretend to use, again, the fallacy of ignorance: since fraud by Dominion has not been proven to be true, it is false, and whoever says the contrary, is defaming them. Outrageous. Dominion is the one, as the electoral system and Joe Biden, who have to face the courts and prove that they are innocent, if the courts were doing their jobs. They have the burden of proof, again, not Sidney Powell or Mike Lindell.

As an example of the legal battle, let's take a look at the phrase that represents the main argument of Sidney Powell's lawyers, used by the MSM to accuse Sidney Powell of being a liar: “Reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process”. By our reasoning it is false that this means she is a liar. It should be clear the difference between her being the accused party from being the accuser one. If she loses being accused, the negative economic impact for her is huge. On the other hand, if she loses being the accuser, she only has minor costs in comparison, while Dominion has to pay the price of a huge crime. That should explain to some people the strategy of Ms. Powell's team in this legal process in which her lawyers issued that plea, based on simple principles of martial arts to dodge the blow of an enemy and use it against him. It is true in a sense, since the MSM took the bait and their lies are backfiring. But the greatest support for it comes from a question of democratic, ethical and justice principles. In that regard, the correct translation, given the correct interpretation framework that we have demonstrated, is as follows:

“Reasonable citizens would know that those statements are political opinions, to which Ms Powell has the right based on the Constitutional freedom of speech principle. In order to be proven as facts they have to be brought to a court of law in which both sides of the conflict would have the opportunity to present their cases, so that the truth about them will come out. Ms Powell’s opinion is that they are true, and she would be defending that side in such a legal trial, even though she does not have the burden of proof”.

It is crucial here that in the Dominion accusation in court, they have the burden of proof. With our interpretation, they do not have a case, and the main reason is the right of free speech. Now, if any court accepted the several motions to that end made by Ms Powell and Mr. Lindell, they, as the accusers, would have the burden of proof. No problem. As we have said, that job should have been exercised by the Department of Justice. But since that institution has failed the people, Ms Powell and Mr Lindell are willing to assume that role, even with the possible bad consequences.

This is the costly signal that we mentioned before, which separates them from the conspirators, the cheaters.

Regarding Mike Lindell, he has given an additional and important and specific costly signal during his Cyber Symposium: if anybody demonstrated that his allegations of cyber fraud were false, would get $5 million. A couple of saboteurs showed up and tried to find the weak points of the forensic cyber analisis. But the most they were able to do was to collude with the MSM to lie about the event and about the proof. That is the case of Josh Merritt, who infiltrated the “red team” of cyber people. Of course the MSM puts him as a person linked to Lindell who finds that everything is wrong. But provides no proof, and did not win the prize for that reason, as other cyber experts, not related to Lindell, have testified publicly. Hence, that costly signal establishes another separating equilibrium in which Lindell comes up as the one saying the truth.

The separating equilibrium in this signaling game demonstrates then that Sidney Powell, and Michael Lindell are not, as the MSM has tried to portray them, liars, but heroes. Heroes of the United States of America and its people. The MSM, if they served the people, should be applauding her courage, not attacking her. Another indication that the MSM are traitors of the US citizens and their nation, since they have turned against their interests and serve the enemies of their republic. And they are acting as cowards too, since they are colluding to bully simple. A clear indication that the rentistic system virus is taking hold of the US here: the powerful, without being right, use all their power and influence to impose their will, acting as bullies, on the defenseless patriotic citizens, and discourage those who dare to confront them. This should shame not only the MSM, but the justice system, allowing such injustices to take place just across their faces.

The cases of Dominion, the politicians who hired it, the judges that favors it and the MSM

As we said, Dominion is bringing Mike Lindell, Sidney Powell, Rudy Guilliani, and others to court, in particular some media outlets. The argument is defamation. What we have said about politicians and public institutions applies to this private firm too. The reason is that it performed public duty, which is sacred in a democracy, on top of that. The judge, admitting the trial, has incurred a grave transgression against free speech, established in the US constitution, and in politics in general, as we have argued, since it is the base of any representative democracy.

It is worth noting the exact coincidence in time between the judge's decision and the Cyber Symposium organized by Mike Lindell. Given that the Economy studies incentives, this fact points to an additional mafia practice in that sense: it has incentives to intimidate people who dare to confront them and use it as a general example. It also indicates a reason to investigate the motives, the incentives, of the judge in question.

But there is more. Dominion is also transgressing the most basic norms of private firms' behavior in the marketplace. Asume, for example, that Ford faces criticism from the consumers regarding the brakes of a car model in a given year. It might be that the criticism is false or it is true. In the first case, the firm goes to the public and demonstrates that it is false, proving it with a technical public demonstration. If it is true, it immediately recalls all the defective cars and replaces the breaks. In the first case, Ford takes it as a good thing the opportunity to be able to show the public the high quality of its products. In the second case, it reflects on itself, apologizes, and compensates the customers who were hurt, trying to reestablish its prestige.

The purchase guarantee market instrument also works that way: in the presence of asymmetric information in which the firm knows more about its products than the consumers, It looks for the confidence of the customers by allowing complete transparency, which eliminates, in practice, the asymmetry of information.

Dominion, instead of satisfying the consumers of its products, has avoided transparency. In fact, it has systematically sued the ones who complain of possible fraud, and has not complied with the subpoenas to appear before the publica audits of Maricopa. To justify this sort of action, Dominion claims that their clients are the politicians who contracted them, and that they are a private, not a public organization. But in a democracy, a public organization can delegate to a private firm a public action, like in this case: it is the electoral authorities which hire Dominion to process and count the votes. On the other hand, the politicians who hired Dominion represent the people. When they allow the firm to act this way against the sovereign, they are two times guilty of treason against those who elected them. Now, the fact that Dominion acts this way also demonstrates that the US has fallen into rentism, where the rule of law in a democratic nation is not respected. The powerful, in this case private firms, bully the people in political matters without consequences for their crimes: not in court, not in the media, which is also guilty of treason, as we imply by our arguments.

All of this points to the guilty verdict in the court for Dominion. And all those politicians, judges and media outlets who act this way, allowing Dominion not to be transparent and to attack the citizens, are then guilty too. On at least two accounts.

On the mechanics, the scope and the actual existence of the global conspiracy.

It is clear that, using the information given by the Time article https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=politics_2020-election&linkId=110717147 there was a wide ranging conspiracy, not necessarily criminal, to defeat Donald Trump, even though they do not use the term with the depth and full scope we propose. It is a very relevant base of our theory, if you connect the dots, as it will be explained in this section. The group of US conspirators, according to Time, included the most important US labor union network, the most important private firms chamber, the democratic party leadership, many republican party leaders, the MSM, the Big Tech companies and many other social and political organizations.

On the other hand, if the claims put forward by Michael Lindell, beginning with its video, “Absolute Proof” (https://michaeljlindell.com/ Transcription: https://twitter.com/Sabiens/status/1361713386262781960?s=20) and closing with his Cyber Symposium are true, it would also be clear that China and other countries like Iran have used many resources, including their Cyber war capabilities, to implement a criminal conspiracy to depose Donald Trump and to favor Joe Biden. Those criminally oriented conspirators would use that domestic conspiracy alliance in order to affect the US elections in their strategic geopolitical favor. Many of those domestic leaders did not have to know they were being used by the international conspiracy collusion against the interests of their nation in terms of systemic damage to their institutions. If some of them knew it, they would be direct traitors. But the other ones would only be instrumental agents. They would not be criminals with intent to kill their democracy. But if true, it would be a fact that they have participated in their country's slaughter. I believe Lindell’s claims are true, because of his “costly signal” talked about before. But that is confirmed by several independent practical-theoretical analyses that show statistical impossibilities, like the one used by Dr. Douglas Frank, based on the match between the graph of the number of ballots received and the graph of registered voters and census data.

Now, even if an important number of the conspiracy actors were unaware of the true scope and consequences of what they were doing and of their actions, on one hand, and there was a clear leadership for the whole process, on the other, what is perfectly possible for this kind of situations is a sort of self-achieved criticality mechanism activated. In appearance to get rid of Donald Trump. But the objective, in reality, was much bigger: to start the demise of the US as the world leader in all aspects of life, including the economic, financial, monetary and military fields, on the one hand, and to mark the beginning of a new era in which the new alternative powers, the “deep state” leading the conspiracy, take control of the whole world, on the other.

The theory of a sunspot coordinated equilibrium explains the mechanics of the self-achieved criticality process and completes the picture, with the help of the Time article, of what actually happened in this election: not everybody had to be coordinated from the top down in order for the conspiracy theory to make sense. Only a public event (a sun spot), signaled by trusted leaders, was enough to activate a chain reaction of directly or indirectly connected links. As is usual in actual wars, not all the circles in the pyramidal hierarchy of the organized part of the process know about what the others do.

When you initiate a self organized process, you also expect creativity, or even apparent anarchy especially at the lower steps of the pyramid, as it clearly happened in this case. The important element for the coordination in the plan is to focus the alignment of the forces towards the common objective. The MSM did that job at the middle and lower links of the chain well in advance (even before Trump was in office four years earlier) and with enough coverage using all sorts of tricks, like straw man logical fallacies --focusing on Trump's problems related to his character, and his supposed racism, for example--. The propaganda slogan was “let’s all go against Donald Trump, our personal, group and national enemy”. In such a war process with compartmentalization, if a platoon falls in the hands of the enemy, they are not able to blame the others, even if they want to: they take the fall for their part themselves, since they do not have information about the rest of the conspiracy agents. That way, the whole process is not compromised.

Even though China and the rest of the conspirators won this battle, the two “miracles” that Michael Lindell mentions mark two crucial errors that reveal the full scale of the conspiracy. One, the common pattern at the lower steps of the pyramid, with frequent mistakes that did not allow the conspirators to hide the fraudulent programmed practices (like dead people voting, double counting, adjudication bucket size), that revealed the smoking gun. The other miracle happened because there was an error at the very top of the pyramid too. At this level big mistakes were made because, even though key elements of the internal US intelligence community, like the CIA, FBI, DOJ, DHS were guaranteed to be part of the conspiracy somewhere in the chain, independent patriotic hackers were able to detect the intrusion activities of the Cyber pirates hired by the conspiracy operating directly from China’s territory and from the rest of the places related to the same network.

Is the US still a democratic republic? Rentism and the battles in the culture field.

We have concluded that in a simulated political trial conspiracy and fraud are proven to be true, with some complexities explained as plausible. But why does it matter here what the US people think, what is common sense, economic logic, or true justice? If you thought that way when we reached the conclusion, be it because you favor Biden and do not care for democracy, principles, justice, logic, rule of law, or because you are a patriot but have lost hope, then you are going to the heart of the issue here: what is at stake is the US democratic republic.

From the simplest perspective, a political system has a structure, related to the institutions, like the constitution, laws, the public powers, and a culture, related to knowledge, beliefs, information, artistic expressions and communication organizations. In relation to culture, notice our remark before about what people believe about their political rights and their responsibilities vis a vis those of the politicians. The MSM and some politicians have tried to impose a culture of wrong principles regarding presumption of innocence, and that indicates a clear symptom of rentism, which in itself is a sociopolitical system, alternative to the US democratic republic.

In any country there are rent-seekers: private organizations that hunt for a benefit through a relationship with the State. Rentism occurs when a group of those organizations go to the extreme of capturing the institutions of the State, which become their servants, not the servants of the people, through their puppets there. The lobbyists the rent-seekers used before rentism become now the representatives of those interests in those institutions. This type of benefit, which does not come from economic productivity, is called “rent” in economics, and from that comes the name of the political illness.

Within the context of a given country, if citizens, and not politicians, have the burden of proof, and they believe so, a case of political corruption will be practically impossible to demonstrate, because in itself, that arrangement reflects that the country has been infected with the virus of rentism. And in that political system, crooks would have control of the institutions, which are part of the structure of the system. What in fact would happen is the opposite: any citizen, whistleblower, who accuses a politician of corruption and tries to bring the case to court, will be proven there to be guilty, being innocent. It is the mechanism used by those who capture the State in those countries to discourage criticism and to stop any revolutionary initiative: while the law is used to perpetuate the system, the victim becomes the criminal. That mafia kind of behavior has already happened in a big way, even before this election, at the Department of Justice, many courts and the FBI, among others, as explained by Sydney Powell in this conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTV1Y_QuZOM

Those institutions, already in great peril were, no doubt because what we said, used for the capture of the executive branch of the national government, and with that, the nation started a path of no return to full fledged rentism, unless some strong shock brings the country back, as we will comment below.

But our point here is that the new gen war we described includes, then, the issue of cultural values, morals and beliefs and its combination with the institutional array of the system. The real dictators in those countries are the ones who don't want to be judged by the people but to impose themselves upon the people, not only judging them, but condemning them if they complain. And they accuse people like Donald Trump of being a dictator, because he opposed them like no president before dared to oppose the mass media and the technological companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google, instruments heavily used in this war by the cartel of rent seekers to capture the US through this important step of the presidential election.

To some of the readers, especially honest democrats, that might not be enough to convince them. They should take a look at this very well documented article on the matter:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/control-need-rein-big-tech/

There you can see that the Big Tech companies are able, based on their knowledge of every person, to induce, at a determinant degree, not only what he or she buys, but also who that person votes for. They are even able to affect your ideology, as explained in the example of Facebook. You can see then from that that a lot of US citizens did not vote in this election. It was the Big Tech and MSM who voted for them while possessing, like demons, their minds and their wills. Besides the already demonstrated fraud, this is also a deeper kind of fraud that, if tolerated in a society, it ceases to be a democracy, in which citizens are supposed to be respected by the Big Tech and media outlets as well as by all institutions and all politicians: based on the principles of freedom and political personal rights, their minds and wills are supposed to be sacred.

But they won’t stop here, as I will explain later: They are so brazen that they are announcing publicly the first ministry of the Deep State: the Ministry of Truth: https://news.microsoft.com/2021/02/22/technology-and-media-entities-join-forces-to-create-standards-group-aimed-at-building-trust-in-online-content/ Which is exactly the same as Chávez and Maduro did in Venezuela, besides imposing the “Law of Hate” to control what the citizens say against their totalitarian regime.

From all of this we conclude that the battle in the culture, morals, information, technology, communications and even spiritual fields is at the forefront within this new gen and worldwide war, at which the traditional weaponry is relegated to less important roles. As we have seen, the US has been defeated without a single shot being heard. In this war, the patriots, independently of their ideology, and its international allies, are at the other side, fighting to rescue the power for the people: to restore the US democratic republic.

The black hole and its characterization: a new generation de facto regime for the US

All of this confirms the conspiracy theory I wrote in December as an experienced Venezuelan with Economics training. It was a warning message to all US citizens independent of their party affiliation or political preference:

https://www.movimientolibertadores.com/doc/MessageUScitizensv2.pdf

As I say there, the proclamation of Joe Biden means nothing less than the capture of the executive branch of the US national government by a mafia cartel of national and international rent-seeking agents. It means the beginning of the fall of the democratic republic of the US, and the start of a new kind of political system characterized as a variation of the Venezuelan Curse of Abundance rentistic political system described in that article: the illness of rentism defined above.

The organizations that capture the country's institutions are an oligarchy of mafias set up for that purpose. Even though they are not always in complete collusion, and usually compete with each other, they act in practice as a mafia cartel which uses de facto power struggles and not the law to settle their differences, since they are not subject to the rule of law. A cartel implies collusion, but I use the term because, even though the component mafias might not be completely coordinated, and the internal fights might be considerable, they act as a unity when facing the common enemy and/or slave: the people. The same styles, the same practices: at the media level, at the judiciary system level, at the citizens level (infiltrating and buying people, for example), at the electoral level and at the institutional level, capturing more and more agents there.

Those kinds of reasons explain what is observed as facts in countries with rentism: the system works like a black political hole, a stable dynamic equilibrium that completely captures, through a converging process over time, the entire nation and all its public institutions. The US has taken, with this election result, a fundamental step to shift from a democracy to a next gen de facto regime. Paradoxically for many, as we see, the dictator was not Donald Trump, but the mafia cartel acting through a set of puppets, including Joe Biden.

The mafia cartel uses all sorts of non-democratic methods to advance their purposes of completely capturing the country while in the converging process. From billions of dollars to buy consciences of key players, to propaganda to enslave the citizens' wills, to extortion, kidnapping, cancellation (firing, obstruction of communication capacity), jailing and even killing of political opponents. It is part of its nature to enter an all encompassing de facto war once given this step of capturing the executive branch of national power, in order to get all the pie, since they will be not content with only part of it. When you get to the long run equilibrium of that system, you lose the rule of law completely, since the elections you get, the base of democracy, are marred with all sorts of tricks, in which the ones you have had at this moment are quite timid by comparison, and those elections are used to perpetuate and reproduce the de facto rule.

To better understand this, let us take a look at the symptoms of the systemic illness, clearly observed in Venezuela in the political aspects of it: endemic corruption, rentistic populism, institutional centralization, territorial centralization, militarism -the military and intelligence institutions become the agents of defense of the mafia cartel-, economic underdevelopment, control of the electoral process to place puppets in charge at all levels and places -independent of party affiliation or ideology; and rentistic culture at the citizen level.

Those are the kind of reasons why, if there is not a strong force that stops the cartel, like the US people uniting to act now, rather than later (in four years, for example) to try to recover the rule of law, the hope of re-establishing the republic that the US founding fathers intended will be extremely difficult.

On the assault on the US Congress and the false parallelism with Venezuela.

Blaming the victim is normal for criminals. In this regard, I will comment on the issue of the assault on Congress in the United States and the parallels with the assault on the National Assembly in Venezuela. Totally different and incomparable things. In Venezuela it was true. But it is that the governments of Chávez and Maduro were in power and the National Assembly was the victim. In the United States, the opposite happened: there was massive fraud, as we have shown, and the people felt powerless, robbed of their power as sovereign of their nation. Trump did not call for a violent raid, as even the FBI found out now, but for a legitimate and peaceful demonstration, and there was infiltration of the conspirators to blame him: they had everything planned to take the photo and blame them. Anyone who knows about basic politics and propaganda can infer that without a special course in strategic games, and also know that such an event would turn against Trump, so that he did not have incentives to do so. But even if the violence had been by Trump supporters, the verdict is very different: the perpetrators were the conspirators who committed fraud and those who supported them. The reason is that you cannot blame a stabbing victim if he calls the assesin “mother fucker” while being killed. The murderer is not justified to make a fuss if the victim behaves in a "disrespectful" manner while being assassinated. This is what the leaders of the murder of the American nation did here: They blamed those who complained for having taken their country, their lives, from them. The deaths of that incident and the disrespect for the institutions are to be charged on the electoral criminals. The aggressors also blame another victim, Donald Trump, who has acted as a formidable warrior and ally defending the US nation and the citizens, in public events, like impeachments, and smear campaigns. It is usual for the criminals to blame the victim, then, in this case in order to hide the real conflict and its current result, and to try to neutralize possible future revivals of their enemy so as to win the war, not only this battle. And to win the whole world from now on.

Worldwide consequences: Corporate capitalism with sophisticated communism.

In fact, as we know, the rule of law really does not exist worldwide. In particular the UN has very little power to control that cartel of mafias. And they have the luxury of pretending to build, themselves, a world state, which we have agreed to call, as other authors do, "Deep State." The first publicly known ministry is the one described: that of "truth", as we said.

If the US falls into this black hole, all the world will eventually, sooner than later, do so too, given the scope of what is going on, and the speed of the convergence dynamics of such a system and, as it is easy to infer, the illness of rentism is completely contagious. While Venezuela will continue to be used as a base platform for the advancement of the mafia cartel at the Latin American level, the US itself would be used as a base platform to take over the whole world.

We can clearly see, from the nature of the main puppeteers in the mafia cartel, that this is an alliance between a cartel of global private corporations (a collusion of global oligopolies) with socialist-communist-islamic states, like China and Iran, wanting to create a global panoptic society, where the slaves are the world citizens, and the all encompassing powerful bosses are the members of that mafia cartel. A mixed system of corporate (not competitive) capitalism, with a sophisticated communism kind of rule at the “state” level (the mafia cartel ruling the world).

We can easily infer that there has been a full-scale next gen battle in the Presidential elections. China and the corporations won this crucial battle in the worldwide war and the US has been defeated in that battle, and it is quite possible that the nation will lose the war, if a shock to counteract it does not happen. The country has been humiliated to such a big extent that not a single shot was used for the defeat and most of the US citizens do not know it; half of the population is celebrating their country defeat without realizing that they have been used as instruments of its demise and for new kind of slavery, been fooled to think this is good for them.

Summary, conclusions and what 's next?: citizens power!

The conclusion of the political trials is that Biden and all his camp are guilty of conspiracy and electoral fraud, and Trump and his camp were not bluffing. The claim was proven in the first section according to economic logic, common sense, and to the US people. That theory is subject to the two kinds of errors commented before in each case judged in this simulation: There is a probability that Biden is innocent and that Trump is a liar. It is crucial, given that this is a political trial, what the population thinks of those conclusions, and what the probability of each of those errors are. I think my analysis clears the minds of many US citizens, including patriot democrats, and puts them to think of the real framework to judge what is going on, especially regarding what it means, as we saw in the next sections: it is not a matter of Biden vs Trump alone, but about the political character of the US nation. And also regarding what is going on, since the war is only at the beginning, and the narrative of the MSM and Big Tech continues to avoid those issues and to focus on race, culture, the real or made up flaws of some of Trump supporters, etc, to engage everybody on them and to continue to divide the people. It is part of the new gen war at full speed.

The converging process can only be stopped if a strong enough shock reverses course and establishes back the democratic republic as the new stable fixed-point dynamic economic system. There are incentives in this kind of situation, in particular facing the facts of the deterioration of the US economy, national and personal safety and security (Afghanistan included), the borders, etc, is for the US citizens' to unite in a single all encompassing alliance, like an “All Patriots Pact”, independently of their political and social orientation, and act right now using all their strength left at this moment in order to get back their nation. That strength includes the institutions not completely captured by the mafia cartel, like the SCOTUS, most of the active and retired military personnel, the honest part of the political leaders, most private sector and labor union leaders, many intelligence community agents, many grassroots organizations and foreign allies and citizens, like most Venezuelans.

Since there is an important opportunity for the citizens, and their grass roots organizations, to realize what has happened and what is going on, it is to be expected, given those incentives, that they unite and fight the battle at every county, every city and State, every court, every moment, electing a new leadership in every party, buying from patriotic companies and local markets, boycotting the agents perceived as traitors, creating non profit citizens owned social media, new private media outlets and so on. That kind of move is predicted by the same Agency Theory, since in a market, the consumers play the role of the principal and the producers play the role of agents. So, citizens, as consumers, play a double role in this confrontation, and it is usual that they unite to boycott a product they believe to be poisonous, for example.

Such alliance would be justified because this is not an issue of right vs left, republican vs democrat, but right vs wrong; the democratic republic of the founding fathers vs a rentistic system with foreign domination. They will not have to wait, as Mike Lindell did, for Donald Trump to act alone, or wait four years. The war is fully on, and it is to be expected that more and more people will start to act now, not leaving for tomorrow what they can do today.

A word is required regarding the citizens who voted for Joe Biden. Most of them were fooled. In order to convince them, many christian leaders, like Lindell and others, are acting with patience and understanding with them. Now, non christians also have incentives to use the most basic principle of business administration for good sellers: the customer is “always right”. They are “selling” a product, which is good, no doubt, for them. Even if the customers do not realize it. So the seller has to go with infinite patience to win them to the common political effort. Good sellers never attack the possible customer. They might attack their ideas, but the ad hominem fallacy should be strictly prohibited from such a pact. They might attack the leaders there, the perceived traitors, since that is a right of the citizens in a democracy. But not the people who were fooled and are on that side only by error. The members of the pact are not asking them to like Donald Trump. Only to like their nation and act accordingly. It is even quite possible that if some instrumental leaders of the conspiracy realize at this time what really happened, for example businessmen and chambers of commerce, they would adopt measures to take back their country with the rest of US members of the pact without renouncing their social and political points of view.

Given the international context I talked about, the US can then become the world leader of a new era: the recovery of citizens power all over the world, and the restoration, on new and more efficient and democratic bases.

The killing of the innocent and the truth: the Christian weapon.

Finally: I wrote my warning to the US citizens on the 28th of December, the day of the innocents, when we remember the killing, by Herod, of the babies of Bethlehem intending to kill the baby Jesus. Even though all those babies died, the move failed to kill Jesus thanks to the three wise men who came from abroad to see him and thanks to Joseph, who heard the message from God, and He succeeded not only against Herod, but against death itself, and brought salvation to humanity. This war move by China, Iran and the international mafia cartel of corporations will produce many deaths, literally and politically. In particular, of US and worldwide innocent citizens. But the truth will not be canceled. In particular because of contributions from many people from outside of the United States. And of US citizens who hear the call from God and empower themselves with an undefeatable combat moral to win this war.

In fact, it is easy to show that in a de facto game, like this war of the chicken and the hawk, moral, courage and religious motivations win wars. The reason is because relative force, which is what matters in this kind of confrontation, dictates the strategy and also the outcome. And an apparent weak player (a chicken) becomes such a ferocious contender that the strong one becomes weak in comparison and loses the war, even after winning an important battle, which might even play as a trigger for the “weak” cornered player. We are witnessing a Christian revival in the US as never before because of what has happened. That spiritual weapon is already making a difference, encouraged by the consequences seen already, in such a short time, of Biden’s tenure, like Afghanistan, the economy, the border, and personal safety. I bet these forces will prevail at the end, which will start pretty soon, in spite of the apparent odds. In the more technical paper, “Biden has abandoned democracy”, I make this point more clear.

“The truth will set you free”. Jesus of Nazareth.