by Robert Wheeler via The Organic Prepper
Daisy Luther’s Editor’s Note: You may initially read this article and find that it is partisan and unfairly targets the Democratic Party. We urge you to look beyond that initial reaction at the facts, not the emotions. Chaos is inevitable after this election, regardless of who is declared the winner. This gives you a glimpse at a powerful group that has been “war-gaming” the situation and their predicted outcomes. As a person who wishes to be prepared, it’s important to know these things so that you can be ready for something that seems to be a planned event. ~ Daisy
by Robert Wheeler
The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) was launched to identify potential risks to the integrity of the November 3, 2020 election process. TIP conducted a series of war games in the summer of 2020, exploring what could possibly go wrong regarding the election. Once risks were identified, the group conducting these war games hoped to find solutions to mitigate those risks.
These simulated “war games” were conducted by a group of Democratic Party insiders, former Obama and Clinton officials, and a number of “Never Trumpers”. TIP justified these exercises as preparation for a Trump loss, and a subsequent refusal by Trump to concede the election.
However, TIP’s report published on August 3, 2020, shows a different story.
In light of this and other studies, no matter where you live, we suggest getting your home ready for the potential of civil unrest and riots and stocking up on emergency food and supplies.
Are these simulations actually manipulating the outcome of the elections?
On the TIP site, it states the goal of the project was to ensure that the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election was legitimate. However, the ties with the Obama administration and pro-Biden groups raises concern that the group is actually planning to ensure the crisis they claim to be attempting to prevent with the simulations.
Whitney Webb writes in an article published on Unlimited Hangout:
…according to TIP’s own documents, even their simulations involving a “clear win” for Trump in the upcoming election resulted in a constitutional crisis, as they predicted that the Biden campaign would make bold moves aimed at securing the presidency, regardless of the election result.
Whitney’s article goes on to explain that the organizers of TIP have ties to the Obama administration, several pro-Biden groups, and the Biden campaign and that this is particularly troubling. Whitney writes:
…the fact that a group of openly pro-Biden Washington insiders and former government officials have gamed out scenarios for possible election outcomes and their aftermath, all of which either ended with Biden becoming president or a constitutional crisis, suggest that powerful forces influencing the Biden campaign are pushing the former Vice President to refuse to concede the election even if he loses.
Such concerns are only magnified by the recent claims made by Hillary Clinton, that Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.” Clinton continued during an interview with Showtime,“I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”
What are some examples of these simulated war games?
Game 3 “Clear Trump Win”, simulated not only how Republicans could use every option at their disposal to “hold onto power”, but also how Democrats could do so if the 2020 election result is not in their favor.
Joe Biden – played by John Podesta, retracted his election night concession and convinced “three states with Democratic governors – North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan – to ask for recounts.” Then, the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan “sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature” to the Electoral College, which Trump had won, in an attempt to undermine that win.
Then, the Biden campaign encouraged Western states to secede from the Union unless the Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms. With advice from former President Obama, the Biden campaign listed the reforms as follows:
- Give statehood to Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico
- Divide California into five states “to more accurately represent its population in the Senate”
- Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70
- Eliminate the Electoral College
These structural reforms will lead to the U.S. having 6 additional states. These six new states will ensure a perpetual majority for Democrats because only Democrat-majority areas are given statehood. Notably, in other scenarios where Biden won the Electoral College, Democrats did not support its elimination.
The TIP claimed that the Trump campaign would seek to paint these “provocative, unprecedented actions” as “the Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup,” despite the fact that that is essentially what those actions entail.
The Biden campaign “provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden. The Republican party did not consent, noting that Trump had won the election through the electoral college victory.
This simulation ended with no president-elect being inaugurated on January 20.
Who are the people involved in TIP and who are they associated with?
The article written by Webb reveals that Brooks was an advisor to the Pentagon and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department during the Obama administration. She was also previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, which is affiliated with the Open Society Foundations (OSF). Zoe Hudson also has ties to OSF, serving as senior policy analyst and liaison between the foundations and the U.S. government for 11 years.
OSF ties to the TIP are a red flag for a number of reasons, namely due to the fact that OSF and other Soros-funded organizations played a critical role in fomenting so-called “color revolutions” to overthrow non-aligned governments, particularly during the Obama administration. Examples of OSF’s ties to these manufactured “revolutions” include Ukraine in 2014 and the “Arab Spring,” which began in 2011 and saw several governments in the Middle East and North Africa that were troublesome to Western interests conveniently removed from power.
As reported by Webb, Nils Gilman, co-founder of TIP and the current VP of Programs at the Berggruen Institute, is particularly focused on artificial intelligence and transhumanism. Gilman recently told the New York Times that his work at the Berggruen Institute is focused on “building [a] transnational networks of philosophers + technologists + policy-makers + artists who are thinking about how A.I. and gene-editing are transfiguring what it means to be human.”
Is there a list of TIP participants?
This question is taken directly from the TIP website. Here is the answer given:
To ensure candid contributions, the Transition Integrity Project’s exercises were conducted under Chatham House Rules, under which participants were free to talk about their own role in the exercises and their general observations, but were asked to respect the confidentiality of other participants. Some of our participants have chosen to write or give interviews about their experiences during the exercise, however. You can see some examples below:
- Ed Luce, “How America could fail its democracy test” Financial Times
- Max Boot, “What if Trump loses but insists he won?” Washington Post
- Jennifer Granholm talks to CNN
- David Frum, “Where the System May Break,” The Atlantic
- Rosa Brooks, “Trump Could Refuse to Concede,” The Washington Post
- Nils Gilman, “Getting from November to January,” The American Interest
Unofficial TIP spokesperson claims there is reason to be worried.
Though he is not mentioned in the list, Lawrence Wilkerson has been the most outspoken of all the participants. He has done most of the media interviews promoting TIP and its “War Games”. Wilkerson said in an interview in June with Paul Jay that aside from their “war games,” the other TIP activities are confidential.
Wilkerson specifically stated: “There is some confidentiality about what we agreed to, and what we’ve put out publicly, and who’s responsible for that, and other aspects of our doing that. The Transition Integrity Project is to this point very, very close, whole, and confidential.”
In that same interview, Wilkerson also noted that the current “combination of events” involving the recent unrest in several U.S. cities, the coronavirus crisis, the national debate over the future of policing, the economic recession and the 2020 election was the foundation for a revolution in the U.S. He told Jay:
“I want to say this is how things like 1917 and Russia, like 1979 and Tehran, and like 1789 in France. This is how these sorts of things get started. So we’ve got to be very careful about how we deal with these things. And that worries me because we don’t have a very careful individual in the White House.”
That last quote is chilling because America is indeed heading in the direction of Russia in 1917. That revolution saw the death of 70 million people.
Where is all this headed, and who benefits from these scenarios?
Webb hazards a guess when she states:
The question then becomes, who benefits from complete chaos on and following the 2020 election? As the TIP suggested in several of their simulations, the post-election role of the military in terms of domestic policing, incidentally the exact expertise of the TIP’s co-founder Rosa Brooks, looms large, as most of the aforementioned doomsday election simulations ended with the imposition of martial law or the military “stepping in” to resolve order and oversee the transition.
The domestic framework for imposing martial law in the U.S., via “continuity of government” protocols, was activated earlier this year under the guise of the coronavirus crisis and it remains in effect. Now, a series of groups deeply tied to the Washington establishment and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies have predicted the exact ways in which to engineer a failed election and manipulate its aftermath.
Who would stand to benefit the most from the imposition of martial law in the United States? I would argue that one need look no further than the battle within Washington power factions over the future of AI…
The last line of Webb’s article states: “By keeping Americans angry and distracted by the partisan divide through pre-planned election chaos, a “New America” waits in the wings – one that is coming regardless of what happens on election day. That is, of course, unless Americans quickly wake up to the ruse.” The media is great at inciting division, both here and in other countries.
This grim vision of the future has been warned about by other researchers in the past. November 3 is approaching quickly and so is the technological control grid and all the chaos that will bring it to pass. Being prepared for civil unrest is essential.
I don’t personally have much hope for the future. But one thing is for certain – it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
What do you think?
Are you expecting trouble after the election? Which outcome do you believe would spark the worst civil unrest? How are you preparing for this? Share your thoughts in the comments.