The main media in the U.S., but also around the world, acted
with vehemence and with strong negative emotions against the Republican
president candidate, Donald Trump, as if organized, but surely spontaneously as
in other cases, when people react according to their opinions and instincts,
without need to coordinate their activity; in case of the predominantly leftist
media, the reaction was predictable. Nevertheless, the extremely unrealistic
results of the pre-election polls again corroborated that reliance on the
information from the media must result in an entirely distorted perception of
the world.
Nearly all commentators and analysts are apparently
surprised by the Trump’s victory, but who knows something about his election
rival, Hillary Clinton, can only be surprised by their surprise. It is a
question why such a corrupted person as Hillary Clinton could have obtained so
many votes. Several facts, controversial according to their opponents, are
presented below about both candidate.
Hillary Clinton:
·
In 1992, Hillary was involved
in a financial scandal, Whitewater, together with Bill Clinton, Arkansas governor by then;
some of their associates were imprisoned and one committed suicide.
·
Between 1993 and 2001,
Hillary was president’s wife. She defended her husband against the accusations
that he had sex with an intern, Monica Lewinski, in the Oval Office of the White House, and
she accused president’s opponents of conspiracy.
·
In 1998, Bill Clinton paid
$850,000 to Ms. Jones in an out-of-court settlement. She had accused him in
1994 that he asked her, without their previous acquaintance, to kiss his penis.
Hillary, although being an active feminist and fighting for women’s rights and
dignity, again did not divorce with Bill.
·
In 1999, in an NBC
interview, Juanita Broaddrick described how Bill Clinton raped her in 1978,
when he was Arkansas Attorney General. According to Broaddrick, Hillary later
threatened her.
·
Between 2009 and 2013,
Hillary served as State Secretary and contributed to the loss of respect for
the U.S. in the world, to the increased chaos in the Arab world and to the
formation of strong ISIS. In 2012, US ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed
and according to the Arab sources also raped in the streets of Benghazi; a
drastic film showing his terrible end was published in the YouTube, a part of
which can be seen even now. Hillary’s administration alleged, in one version,
that the mob dragging the ambassador’s body in fact tried to help to him, and
in another version, they explained that the mob was justifiably angered by a film insulting to
the prophet Mohammad.
·
In 2015 it became known
that Hillary had used her private email server for
classified information which had been accessible to hackers, thus gravely
compromising the U.S. security.
·
With active assistance of
Hillary and Bill Clinton, Russians assumed control of Uranium One, one of the
world biggest uranium mining company, between 2009 and 2013, while a flow of
cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Shortly after the Russians
announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr.
Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank
with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock, and Vladimir
Putin personally called Clinton to thank him. Russia acquired
control over about 20 percent of U.S. uranium, and Clintons accumulated $250
million in assets.
·
In 2013, Hillary started to
collect money from donors to the their private Clinton Foundation, allegedly to
help children. Hillary collected money even when she served as State Secretary,
from Qatar and other countries supporting terrorism.
Donald Trump:
·
Donald promised to restrict
the infiltration of illegals and criminals from Mexico.
·
He planned to act against
the Chinese economic hegemony.
·
He considered to make the
US allies financially participate on the US expenditures for defending them.
·
He announced he would stop
financing the fight against global warming.
·
Donald talked impolitely
about woman.
So why so many commentators and analysts were surprised ?
Probably, because they mostly work for the main media, which are powerful and
have a great influence on thinking of the people and on the running of the
world, and therefore the media expect the world to go along with their wishes
and predictions.
The media polls unanimously predicted victory of Hillary
Clinton over Donald Trump. The predicted margin of victory was in average about
5 points (=5%), but the real difference was about 1 point [2 points after final count]. The
difference of about four points [finally three] between the prediction and the real result
would be in the ambit of an expected error for a single poll, but it is too
much for an average of hundreds of polls. It is evident that a great part of
the polls has employed an incorrect method or has been rigged.
From hundreds of published polls performed between January
and November 2016, I have selected those which were organized by the respected
sources of information in the U.S., including the biggest press agencies
(Reuters, AP, Bloomberg), biggest TV stations (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox), and
the biggest newspapers (NYT, USA Today, WSJ, Washington Post) – 151 polls
together. I have also included the polls performed by Universities (21 polls),
and by Rasmussen Reports – an American polling company (32 polls). I have
averaged the polls over the whole pre-election period for each of the sources,
the universities being combined together. The results are presented in the
following table (Wall Street Journal organized the polls together with NBC, and
Washington Post together with ABC), arranged according to the decreasing margin
of victory for Clinton. Beside the averaged predicted difference between the
%votes for Hillary and %votes for Donald, the table contains the minimal and
the maximal result among the polls of each source (giving some intimation of
the results dispersion).
Predicted margin of
Clinton’s victory over Trump
|
|||
Average
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
|
Associated Press
|
8,0
|
4
|
14
|
Bloomberg
|
7,7
|
0
|
18
|
Reuters
|
6,9
|
0
|
14
|
CBS
|
6,8
|
-1
|
11
|
USA Today
|
6,4
|
-2
|
11
|
Universities
|
6,1
|
1
|
13
|
NBC
|
5,9
|
1
|
13
|
CNN
|
5,5
|
-3
|
13
|
ABC
|
4,9
|
-2
|
12
|
New York Times
|
4,2
|
0
|
10
|
Fox News
|
3,9
|
-3
|
11
|
Rasmussen Reports
|
0,6
|
-7
|
5
|
The world press agencies (AP, Bloomberg, Reuters) have erred
the most – and they take the upper three lines in the table, followed by the
mixture of the prestigious papers, TV stations, and universities. The table
shows that it was possible to predict the election results more accurately: a
nonpolitical polling company did it. Averaged 32 polls of Rasmussen Reports
provided a margin for Clinton of 0.6 points and differed from the real result
of about 1 point [finally 2 points] insignificantly. Mathematics cannot explain how the press agencies
could have predicted a margin of 8 points for Clinton, whereas they even provided
predictions of 14 or even 18 points in several polls. Press agencies prepare – manufacture
– the news for other media, and common sense would expect that this is a
technical activity without bias or political agenda. However, in the case of
the 2016 election the agencies manufactured the most distorted of all
“predictions” – differing from the real results by about 6 points. The famous
newspapers and universities followed with an error of 2 to 5 points – strangely
all errors into one direction, i.e. predicting Clinton’s victory. The results
of the repeated polls oscillated in a range of about +6 points around
the average (it can be noted that half of the difference between the maximal
and minimal values in the table is between 5 and 9). Of course that manifold
repetition of the measurement would have to provide an average much closer to
the real value than +6, sometimes positive and sometimes negative
(somebody would have to predict also Trump’s victory). The minimal error was
provided by Fox News, known as being free of the left bias. From the polls organized by less famous papers, Los Angeles
Times repeatedly predicted Trump’s victory.
Surely, all the mentioned media giants, or the universities,
could have afforded to buy an accurate poll having a good standard, such as the
Rasmussen polls. They did it in the past, as proven by their accurate
predictions in the 2012 election: universities and 7 out of 10 media sources in
the above table differed only by 0.7 points form the real result (averaged from 50 polls I have found). Obama won by 3.9 points over Romney, and the mentioned
sources predicted in average 4.6, wherein the minimal result was 2.5 points for
Obama (ABC) and the highest was 6 points for Obama (Bloomberg), without any extreme
results. The only possible conclusion is that the media and universities have
not wished to find and publish the real situation in the 2016 election, in
contrast with the 2012 election. They were consistently publishing erroneous
polls, i.e., they were lying throughout the whole period of ten months before
the election. A closer look at the information manufacturers helps to
understand their motives; mostly they are organizations having openly leftist
and politically correct agenda (except for Fox News). For example, in their
manufacturing activities, AP abolished the term “illegal immigrant” as
dehumanizing, and Reuters abolished the term “terrorist” as too emotional; both
of these agencies are biased against Israel and were so accused even by their
own employees. The founder and owner of Bloomberg concern, Michael Bloomberg,
is an enthusiastic supporter of illegal immigrants and of the fight against the
global warming.
The information manufacturers see everything as relative:
everybody is right, to some degree at least, including charlatans, dangerously
mentally ill, and terrorists. Only their political opponents are never right,
and they are marked for liquidation. These manufacturers also invent
alternative values to the existing values: alternative medicine, alternative
science, alternative religion, alternative IQ, alternative love – and there is
an alternative reality. They live in an alternative world in which all is
allowed – except for the truth. The more
states there are in which cannabis is allowed, the more words there are in the vocabulary
which are forbidden. The commentators analyze why “populist Trump” has won, but
they ignore the fact that the Western society loses contact with reality. The
struggle against barbarians cannot be won if half of the people are drugged.
According to the polls (provided by the information makers) more than half or
the US population supports cannabis legalization. I cannot verify that, but the
fact is that out of 8 US states in which cannabis has been legalized so far, 7
voted for Hillary Clinton in this election (Alaska is pro cannabis, but voted
against Clinton, probably as they wish to develop their oil reserves).
Many of the analysts state that they have not voted for
either of the candidates – they merely wish to analyze and comment. They
dislike Trump’s alleged rudeness and populism, and they believe that the voters
have failed and let in the uneducated whites. A few of rather right-inclined
comments suppose that the white worker showed his anger. Nothing so dramatic
has probably occurred, simply a few of the democratic voters could not put up
with their corrupted candidate and stayed at home, as well as a few of the colored
people, who do not care for white women in politics. And so it has happened
that the descendants of those, who created the great America, got another
chance – possibly the last one. Only few of those analyses and comments mention
that “the cowboy entered the town alone on his horse”, against the opponents’
money, against the Democratic Party, against the Republican Party, against the
“intellectuals” led by Lady Gaga, against the theoreticians of the transgender
toilets, and against the manufacturers of the alternative reality. Not many
mention that the primitives who have now won are real representatives of
America – the best state ever. The commentators in the U.S. and in the world are
not much worried by the fact that nobody will be able to save the world from
African chaos, Islamic terror and Chinese-Russian hegemony in the oncoming post-American
era.
We all witnessed systematic vilifying of the republican presidential
candidate this year and also in 2012. In the last election, they have added falsified
polls to the insults, hoping to influence the results in the desired direction.
Similar situations occur repeatedly in the democratic countries. By delegitimizing
Bibi Netanyahu and by falsifying polls in 1996 and again in 2013, the Israeli media
and Left establishment unsuccessfully tried to prevent Netanyahu from becoming
prime minister; by lying and falsifying, the European Left tried to stop the
Brexit. The news manufacturers rudely attacked the voters, when the reactionary
reality deviated from their virtual reality. According to the slogan “workers
of the world, unite”, the Left elements around the whole democratic world are
coordinated in their opinions about everything, including Bibi, Brexit, and
Trump. The one-sidedness and mendacity of the Left have unfortunately become
the attributes of most media in the democratic countries (at least in the USA,
Europe and Israel). If the media lie in the election polls so grossly and
exhibit such an irrational and histrionic support for one side (always the left
one), one cannot help concluding that their “news” cannot be relied on,
whatever they relate to. One cannot rely on what they pump into the people’s
heads around the world and around the clock. One cannot rely that spinach is
rich in iron, that trans-fats shorten our lives, that IQ is not related to smartness
and that there is an alternative smartness, that all groups of people have the
same IQ, that the criminality is not related to genetics, that serial killers
can be rehabilitated, that drugs legalization will reduce their abuse, that
conflicts with terrorists can be solved peacefully, that conflicts with
political opponents must be solved only violently (bombing Serbia by beatniks admirers
– Clinton, Solana and Havel), that supporting dictatorship will moderate them
(Chinese and Moslem dictatorships), that climate warming makes more deserts, that
farting cows warm the planet, that building new apartments in Israeli Judea is
detrimental to world peace, that there is no connection between Jerusalem and
Jews, and that the manufactured news are true. People around the world believe
many superstitions, incorrect data, unfounded hypotheses, and fabricated facts,
because they were obtained from the respectable sources – from the world media.
However, these media stated that it was scientifically impossible for Donald
Trump to win the election.
The uniformly rigged coverage of the US 2016 election and entirely false
predictions again corroborated unreliability and fraudulency of the media. The
only logical and mathematically founded conclusion of the polls analysis is
that the media are corrupted. He who constructs the world picture on information
from the media, without applying healthy experience, classical ethics and exact
sciences, will cease to perceive reality and will become a puppet in an
alternative world of the politically correct Left.