Oh, Kevin McCauley, you’re so adorable when your misplaced optimism borders on delusional.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Axios reports (21 Jan 2021) that trust in news media has fallen to an all-time low, as illustrated by the following graph:
At a glance, it appears as though the steepest plunge came when news outlets started lying about COVID-19, though correlation does not equal causation.
There are a few bullet points that served as takeaways:
56% of Americans agree with the statement that “Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”
58% think that “most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.”
When Edelman re-polled Americans after the election, the figures had deteriorated even further, with 57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.
I can imagine that there is a desire among the curious to further study some of these trends, including the tendency of Democrats to drink the Kool-Aid when hearing what they want to hear.
According to Axios, “many news professionals are determined to do something about it.” To this end, and after brief consideration, I have the following advice to offer:
Stop lying to us.
I’ll grant that I seldom watch the news, except just to leave YouTube comments. I suspect that this has a lot to do with the fact that I’m not a diaper-wearing adult, and therefore fall well outside televised news’ key demographic. Much of my interaction with the news has to do with making fun of it, which isn’t that hard considering that the last few years of journalism has been characterized by obsessively going after just one guy.
If there’s one thing about this study that bothers me, it’s that as many people trust the news media as they do. Forty-six percent? That’s way too high! That suggests that 46% (nearly half) of all Americans will believe complete butt-slurry if it came from the mouth of a man in a suit. When I walk down the street, half the people I see don’t look like they’re drooling all over themselves or trying to bite their own ears, so I find it hard to picture half of Americans dumb enough to trust the three-letter networks.
But do you know what I do see? A lot of fat people. And lots of Americans eat at McDonald’s. Corporate left-wing media is like McDonald’s for your brain. That stuff makes brains fat, sluggish, and tired.
When people trust the news, they keep going back for more and more of that mental McDonald’s, and as they keep stuffing themselves, their bloated paunch distends.
The Jaffe memo, pictured above (source), is a table constructed from measures proposed by the eugenics movement in 1969. The proposals were never intended to be made public.
A word about the eugenics movement: people today are largely unaware of it. Those that are aware of it mostly seem to be under the impression that it’s no longer a significant factor in world events.
Eugenics came about in light of the Darwinian theory of evolution, and it was embraced by racist people because it provided a scientific basis for their racist tendencies. The earlier 20th century saw much of the world’s races proclaiming themselves the best.
After WW2, eugenics became highly unpopular. This had much to do with the fact that Hitler and his party of National Socialists took the idea to extremes, and became world famous for his inhuman behavior.
The popular perception today is that eugenics was defeated, and that the world has not looked back, since. In reality, ideas are nearly impossible to destroy, no matter how much they deserve it. In reality, eugenics was driven underground, resuming its dark designs outside of the public eye.
Among the beliefs of eugenics is that there is getting to be too many human beings, which is why the Jaffe memo above calls for measures to discourage people from procreating as abundantly.
At one point, the eugenics movement went crazy with the compulsory sterilization of those whom they deemed unfit. Today, it seems they are more about deterring family plans. This can sometimes have the appearance of allowing people to make their choices voluntarily, but considering the underhanded methods they have engaged in, it’s easy to see that there is no ethical way to deter family plans.
Let’s look at a few aspects of the memo to see just what ideas they came up with about five decades back. They’ll be interesting to think about considering how many of their plans have already come to fruition.
(Some points may be skipped for brevity.)
Restructure family: a) Postpone or avoid marriage, b) Alter image of ideal family size
Eugenics has declared war on the family, and their misinformation campaign is well underway. It’s easy to see that people are marrying later in life. For eugenics, this is a dream come true, as the result is people skipping their more fertile years.
Also of note is that their intent to restructure the public perception of the ideal family size. Traditionally, a larger family has been viewed as a blessing. In a sense, eugenics wishes to prop itself up, making themselves out to be gods, restructuring families as they wish, and taking it upon themselves to dictate to us a new set of values.
Compulsory education of children
Like the socialists and communists before them, the eugenics movement knows that children are the key to the future, and if they have your children as a captive audience, they can fill their minds with whatever mashugganah they please, and few would be able to resist or gainsay.
There is a bit of a sobering pause for thought to be had, here. Isn’t the education system highly establishment, these days? And don’t we currently have compulsory education? If the eugenicists did have sway over the education system, just how pervasive are they?
Encourage increased homosexuality
How well do you suppose this went? Homosexuals only make up about 2.5% of the population, but corporations and media are making it seem as though it’s more widespread.
How this would benefit their movement is easy to see, because homosexuals, when allowed to pursue their passions, don’t procreate.
Still, the suggestion that homosexuality can be encouraged, rather than be a natural occurrence in the human genome, appears to suggest that they are aware that it can be the result of external conditioning. It certainly flies in the face of the more cultivated perception.
The Jaffe memo doesn’t say anything about transsexuals, but it’s understandable that some similar principles apply. Interestingly, a transsexual has been appointed to the position of Health Secretary.
Fertility control agents in water supply
Here comes the people who have been pointing at fluoride. But the fact that a similar measure has actually been considered is food for thought.
Encourage women to work
One might wonder how this could possibly limit fertility. This has to do with a couple nuanced points.
For one thing, there’s the more obvious observation that a woman who takes on career pursuits at a young age may end up skipping out on the more fertile years of her life, and might not start a family until a later point when she’d likely have fewer children.
There’s also the point that women are naturally hypergamous, meaning that they tend to marry upward on the social scale. Recent times have seen many women ascend the career ladder, but upon doing so, they find fewer men that they find suitable for themselves.
Modify tax policies: (etc. etc.)
European colonists in America went to war over a tax of about 2 to 3 percent. Today, the federal government chows down on roughly 45% of a person’s income.
A recurring theme among the economic deterrents is the idea of penalizing parents who have children, particularly after a certain number. Today, mere economic difficulty seems to serve as a deterrent to family plans. The mobility of the middle class has long been a vexation of the upper class, but in recent decades, the gap between the upper and middle class has widened to a near-insurmountable chasm.
It’s hard to imagine that eugenics could ask for an approach for population control more effective than ensuring that the middle class joins the ranks of the destitute.
What happened to the middle class might have actually exceeded their expectations. Then there’s the fact that there’s fewer payouts involved when taking the routes of penalties and hardships than to provide incentives. Perhaps they’ve decided on a more cost-effective path.
The effects of depression on reducing a person’s motivation is easy to understand. But what methods would they be considering to induce depression on their intended victims?
Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies
Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three
Daaaayyyuuuummm… They’re getting into some Hitler territory, there!
What more do I have to say? They’re straight-up saying that some people deserve to procreate more than others, and they want to decide how many children people get.
Confine childbearing to only a limited number of adults
It wouldn’t surprise me if they wanted to carefully select who these people are, based on behavioral, genetic, and idealogical criteria. Or class criteria, for that matter.
One thing we’ve already seen is the one-child rule in communist China. Ted Turner was an outspoken fan of this rule, but Ted Turner himself has had four children.
The idea isn’t to place limitations on the wealthy, it’s to place limitations on you.
Housing policies: a) Discouragement of private home ownership
Millennials are often criticized for their hesitance to buy homes. What’s being overlooked is that economic factors are making home ownership for younger people cost prohibitive.
Older people who already got while the getting was good would do well to know that they’d be unlikely to replicate their previous successes in current conditions. They’d be better off holding on to what they’ve got for as long as they could manage.
No generation has become as heavily educated, and worked with as sharp career focus, just to get less compared to the preceding few generations. Obviously, this means that something is not right.
The eugenicists don’t want you to own your own home. It wouldn’t surprise me if the current housing market was the result of years of meddling by the world’s worst people.
Payments to encourage abortions
If you don’t have to have it explained to you why moral people would find rewarded abortions infuriating, you’re likely a moral person, yourself. Note the implication that abortions are so important to eugenicists that they actually considered paying people to undergo the procedure.
Eugenics, like abortion, is about murder. It’s about deciding who lives and who dies, hidden behind a veneer of civility. When the blood is hidden from the sight of ordinary people, it’s easy for them to pretend it’s not happening. But those who do the murder also kill an important aspect of themselves: their humanity.
Because humanity would not approve of what they’re doing, it’s easy to see why they’d desire to reshape humanity according to their own image.
In five decade’s time, a lot has happened. Obviously, the plan is a lot further along. In some ways, it has taken on different directions, and achieved successes that the original brainstormers hadn’t anticipated. Of course, the Jaffe memo is dated, what with it going back five decades. It stands to reason that the orchestrators behind the original memo have since revised their plans, in light of changing conditions.
But now that you’re aware of this memo, what do you think? Does it provide a surprising explanation for the direction of certain societal trends? Or perhaps you might be skeptical about it. Not everyone finds it easy to accept that a group of people like the eugenicists could have such a pronounced impact on society, though it seems they may have been more pronounced than we gave them credit for.
Personally, I think it reveals some possible motivations behind certain influential people whose decisions may initially seem to make no sense. If a “leader” makes a choice that might result in undesirable consequences, it’s possible that they might be undesirable for you by design.
Dave Cullen of Computing Forever has posted an important video to alternative video-hosting service BitChute. This video, titled “Sterilisation”, is a must-watch, especially if you’re thinking about getting the COVID vaccine, considering how quickly the vaccine has been rushed by certain persons interested in limiting the human population, who also have an established history of causing permanent sterilization through vaccines. Re-read that previous sentence, if you have to. Here is the video, embedded:
I’ve long been subscribed to Computing Forever on YouTube, even since his early days when when his channel was focused on computing, with a particular emphasis on bashing Apple products. In more recent times, he has switched gears to world trends, and has spread his presence to alternative media platforms, considering that his viewpoints aren’t in lockstep with the official narrative. Dave as recently been blocked from uploading new videos to YouTube, likely because his recent offerings rock the boat.
In the above-embedded video, Dave succinctly makes the case for why it’s obvious that the COVID vaccine was specifically-designed to damage human fertility. Some of the information was already well-established, but he does get credit for outlining the information available in a manner that is succinct enough for a quick watch, but with information compelling enough to help a person make up their mind.
I also believe he deserves credit for finding the Jaffe Memo, a 1969 document outlining population control tactics by Planned Parenthood. I’ve happened upon it before, but for some reason, it has since become notoriously hard to find. Here is a link to read it, where it can also be downloaded, which I recommend doing before that particular site were to vanish.
If you’re in the black community, you should take special interest, as the eugenics movement behind the population control measures have long looked down on your race. But even if you’re not, your attention in this matter is strongly advised. (Remember: Racism is bad.)
It’s not a pretty thought, but the fraudulent game is about artificially-induced natural selection, where the winners are those whom perverse scientism deems worthy, or at least those who are not gullible enough to get a vaccine more dangerous than the actual disease.
Considering this, it’s interesting that the big players in social media are working to prevent anyone from saying the wrong thing about the virus, in much the same way that we aren’t allowed to question the results of the election this time around. It’s as though the tech oligarchs have allied with the state to impose strict top-down controls to push an unethical agenda. But hey, that sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn’t it?
Now that the establishment has selected their leaders, things will move along quickly, now.
House speaker Nanci Pelosi threatened to waste enormous amounts of time and taxpayer money in retaliation for Trump supporters’ entry into the Capitol building earlier this week. To this end, she threatened yet more impeachment proceedings against Trump if her attempts to coerce Vice President Pence into misusing the 25th Amendment fails to go through.
As this is going on, the political director of the ABC news network Rick Klein has called for the ideological cleansing (their word) of the Trump movement. Such an endeavor, if seriously pursued, would involve the targeting of the approximately 75 million people who voted for President Trump, who would make up about one-fourth of the U.S.A.’s roughly 331 million people.
Of course, the same news network already felt morally-justified in lying about Trump and his supporters for a half-decade, so where they go from here morally speaking is anyone’s guess.
“Cleansing the movement he commands, or getting rid of what he represents to so many Americans, is going to be something else,”
ABC’s Rick Klein
What he represents is called “Populism”, which is for the will of the people to be actively pursued by elected representatives. The problem that the establishment has with this is easy to see.
Historically, “ideological cleansing” involves murder, and lots of it.
By the way, Orville Redenbacher is owned by ConAgra, in case you were thinking of adding popcorn to your portfolio, and possibly benefit financially from all this madness.
While it’s not news that the Democratic Party is not thinking straight, since the Capitol siege, they’ve been running on emotions, and I think the case can be made for keeping them away from their usual duties until the time comes that they can approach matters more rationally.
In a way, they remind me of a guy who got punched by some random lunatic. The guy was normally rational and composed, but was not accustomed to physical altercations. But in the days after he was attacked, he was both nervous and inordinately vindictive, obsessed with retribution against his assailant. It took a while, but he eventually calmed down.
In a way, House speakers are kinda like him. While they have discussed resolutions that have had an impact on a great many people, as they have done so, they have lived in opulent ease. This week, they have experienced the perception of danger, in the case of some of them, for the first time in their decades-long lives. While they have waged war and destroyed life and livelihood through edict, they themselves were blissfully insulated from the disastrous consequences of their choices.
As it turns out, they can’t take it anywhere close to as well as they dish it out, as they have been faced with the prospect of personal backlash, in some cases, for the very first time.
To your average out-there leftist shill, the expulsion of their ideological opponents is a dream-come-true, as it would mean free-reign to do anything they wish, with all pretenses of unity and compassion for the downtrodden bring summarily defenestrated. But to those of us with clarity-of-mind, regardless of political affiliation, the escalation resultant from the very attempt is plain to see. That is why we recognize it for the insanely dangerous move that it is, and should not be attempted, regardless of how angry some insulated person feels.
What Pelosi and the rest of the house need is some immediate time off, for a few days. By then, their thirst for blood will have likely waned.
Trump-supporting protesters stormed the Capitol building in Washington D.C., and if you’re hearing about it from me first, I’m genuinely impressed. This was an event that was unexpected, and unfortunately did result in one death, apparently of a random protester not actively engaged in a specific violent act, at the hands of a police officer who discharged their firearm.
Trump supporters just did what leftists like Antifa and BLM wish they had the nerve to do. Natch, the left and their pseudo-right establishment cronies collectively wants the activists hung, drawn, and quartered.
When it comes to this massive occurrence, there isn’t much more that I can offer outside of my own perspective, for what it’s worth. Apparently, the occurrence was initially intended to be a peaceful demonstration, but matters escalated in the heat of the moment, especially in light of the fact that the leader of the attending Proud Boys movement was arrested and barred from D.C. over a minor property and free-speech issue.
Of course, there’s more to it than that. Since the lockdowns, there have been countless people out there that wish that they could punch a giant hole in D.C., and it so happens that it was Trump supporters who were first to successfully pull it off. This tension was exacerbated by unconstitutional mandates which were subsequently flouted by the very governors that called for them.
If you cost a man his job, you make an enemy with a lot of free time.
Now, let’s talk consequences. As you would expect, the left and the political establishment is demonstrating its sincerity in siding with history’s revolutionaries by calling for the heads of the protesters. The ideological ayatollahs behind them includes the tech industry, social media, and legacy media, which can be expected to labor hard to spin this occurrence to fit their own narrative. Not content to merely influence, they’ll also censor any attempt to present a more factual picture, and not only that, they’ll do their diligence to ensure that the same thing doesn’t succeed again. There will be tech censorship, just as there has been tech censorship against challenges to the results of the 2020 election. If the President of the United States is being censored, you are not immune.
Speaking of censorship, Twitter blocked the sharing of a video from the President calling for the demonstrators to go home. That was a mistake, as it was just the thing they would have wanted out there if they were interested in deescalating the situation. But in the same video, he did as half the electorate is doing and questioned the results of the election, and in their eyes, that was enough to hide his calls for a peaceful outcome. Even corporate media saw the benefit in getting that video out there, as they posted it to social media, themselves.
And then there’s how the government responds. Suffice it to say, the Capitol siege got as far as it did because it took them entirely off-guard. Historically, governments handle uprisings the same way they always do: When the top is attacked, they always attempt to shield themselves with the bottom.
There is currently a conspiracy theory going around that the demonstrators got wound up because of a presence of Antifa provocateurs. Like many conspiracy theories, it’s goofy, as it’s hard to imagine that Antifa would have much to gain by making it appear that their political adversaries are far more capable, and have a lot more nerve.
But one reason why I personally doubt that Antifa was involved was because there was a lot less fire than what is usually associated with them.
The enduring legacy of the Capitol siege does not bode well for Biden himself, as it illustrates for him that he will be the most unwanted President in the history of the Republic. He is the only man in American history for whom the prospect of his Presidency resulted in a siege of the Capitol building. If he does end up taking office, it would be in the shadow of the awareness that a huge chunk of the American electorate believe he did not earn it honestly.
Now that the siege is over, it’s the establishment’s turn. Whether you’re interested or not, you’re being bombarded with a rushed and disjointed official narrative that was quickly cobbled together for your eyes, to be presented by the typical three-letter networks. The resultant temper tantrums are amusing in their own sense, but predictable to the point of being stale within moments of being set on the table.
We already know what state media thinks, who gives a damn?
An anecdote from Kamala Harris is making the rounds. The account pictures a toddler Kamala at a rally, asked by her mother what she wanted after she fell from a stroller. According to Harris herself, she responded by cutely saying, “Fweedom!”
Harris’ account is now facing challenges for its similarity to an account by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in which he saw a small girl make the same proclamation.
We live in a world where coincidences exist, so it’s possible that Harris had an experience similar to something that King recalled. But because her running mate Joe Biden has a reputation for borrowing other people’s experiences, it’s understandable that people are kinda skeptical.
But even taking Kamala’s word for it, the real irony to be had here is that Harris would grow up to obstruct the freedoms of innocent people. Among these are parents of truants against whom she filed criminal charges because their children missed school (Kamala laughed looking back on this, no joke), keeping people incarcerated for minor offenses so they could be exploited for cheap labor (even paying them $1/hr to fight California wildfires), and obstructed a DNA test that would have exonerated a black man on death row because she was on the prosecution (twist: the man took the test, and was cleared).
Obviously, transforming into the Chuck Norris of evil is a pretty far fall from being a little girl innocently pining for “fweedom”. The prospect of the same person becoming the Vice President of the United States is terrifying, considering her established history of abuse and obstruction against those under her power.
But don’t let that get in the way of that warm mental-image of millions of Americans under a Biden-Harris administration collectively calling out for freedom. I’d make a joke about getting what you voted for, but we all know we didn’t.
“I don’t care that they stole my idea… I care that they don’t have any of their own.”
This was the year in which a few people who don’t care about the rest of us destroyed what many of us have spent years working for, the pretext being a virus so deadly that you have to take a test to know you have it.
Here is one image that describes the year 2020 better than the rest:
The following are a few runners up, some of which have already been posted to this blog:
The year 2020 was pretty miserable, but the long-term consequences of poor governance is yet to be seen. For those of us who have survived to this point, it might not sound like much of a prize to see the next year. However, you might be surprised at just how much the quality of your time depends on you.
Therefore, why not use some of the time that the year 2021 gives you to seek self-betterment? You are a part of society, and if you better yourself, that’s the small part you can play to make society a better place. To that end, you can learn a new skill, make some new connections, take up a new hobby, learn some new things, develop spiritually, find that special someone, set some goals and go for them, and in many other ways, make it worthwhile that you’re alive.
You made it this far. It’s going to mean a lot more if you have a reason to keep going.
One of the classic signs of paranoia is overestimating the capabilities of one’s perceived enemies. It might be that I can relate to that. This is because just days ago, I likened the ad algorithms to Psycho Mantis from Metal Gear Solid in their ability to simulate mind-reading to serve you ads targeted specifically to you.
While I do believe that targeted ads are a thing, and that they can get pretty eerie, it might be that attributing a targeted ad about frozen burritos after considering them at a supermarket to something besides another empty coincidence is giving the algorithms too much credit.
I suspect as much because the algorithms, in spite of knowing what kind of car we like better than we do, still haven’t figured out that I don’t celebrate Christmas, and they have continued to send Christmas ads to me, not aware that the products and services depicted run the risk of a boycott, rather than a purchase.
I understand that for a Christian to not celebrate Christmas is something of an infrequent occurrence, but we’re not unheard of. But considering that the intersectional busybodies trip over themselves to make sure that minority groups don’t get offended, it’s hard to imagine that Jews or Muslims put up with Christmas ads nearly as much.
As an aside, I think we can take a moment to appreciate that a culture’s observances are a reflection of their values. For example, Jews observe Yom Kippur (lit. Day of Atonement). Reconciliation is so important to the Jewish that they’ll fast for about 24 hours as part of the observance. Muslims observe a Stoning of Satan as part of the Hajj Pilgrimage, which is an outward sign of their pro-active approach against wickedness.
What’s the message of Christmas? After decades of commercial conditioning, the message has been reduced to “buy stuff”. Christmas has become so devoid of spiritual significance that even atheists observe it without qualm.
I may have been greatly overestimating the algorithms if I had the expectation that it could determine that I do not participate in commercialized pagan mysticism. But it’s also possible that the algorithms were aware of this, but I was served the ads anyway because the algorithms themselves were cultivated by a group of marketers that can’t be expected to identify with people who are actually sincere about their convictions.
If you’re going to observe Saturnalia, then call it Saturnalia and stop kidding yourselves about it, because you can’t put someone back into something that they were never a part of. If your observance is being commercialized and you do nothing to resist that, the expected outcome is that your bank account gets emptied year after year as you struggle to prove how religious you are.
Those of us who have found the joy of non-participation would appreciate it if the commercialists stopped trying so hard to get us to go along with something we know better than to do.
”The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.”
In the hit video game Metal Gear Solid, there was a character who captured the imaginations of gamers everywhere. This character was named, Psycho Mantis.
The character made the claim of being able to read your mind. When confronted, he would use his ability. The jaws of gamers all over the world collectively dropped as he uttered these famous words:
“You like Castlevania, don’t you?”
This trick was achieved by reading the player’s memory card, and if any save data from other Konami games was present, this would be used to determine his dialogue.
This wasn’t his only trick. He also made the claim of being able to use telekinesis. He would demonstrate this when players set their force-feedback controllers down on a hard surface. This was simply accomplished by activating the controller’s vibration.
When players attempt to fight Psycho Mantis, it was likely a one-sided affair. He could avoid the player’s attacks with ease. It was an instance of the game cheating by reading the player’s controller inputs. After many, many attempts, frustrated players wondered just what it was they were supposed to do.
Suppose that an enemy similar to Psycho Mantis actually exists. Suppose that, rather than one person, something like Psycho Mantis is actually a system. Is the public at large up against an enemy like this? Do we have clues that this may be the case?
Suppose you’re at the supermarket one day, walking down the frozen section. The frozen burritos catch your eye. You think about them for a moment, then decide against them, moving on.
Within the next few days, when using an app on your phone, an ad pops up for frozen burritos. That seems oddly specific. You may have already known about targeted ads, but that seems tailored directly to you, and it’s especially concerning considering you haven’t been looking up burritos on your tech, and you weren’t even using your phone when you were considering those frozen burritos. Yet, the algorithms knew your recent considerations well enough to serve you an ad based on them.
How is that even possible?
The technology available today is capable of feats that would have appeared magical just a couple decades ago, and that’s just what the general population is aware of. Whether you know it or not, the technology being used by millions of people is building psychological profiles on them based on seemingly insignificant things such as how they type or text, their search engine history, the sites they visit, how long their browser tabs are open, what they purchase, and who they connect with on social media.
If a person uses a dating site and then starts seeing ads for diamond engagement rings, they’re seeing the ad algorithms at work!
It’s getting to the point that the targeted advertisements are starting to resemble the results of mind-reading. It’s troublesome, and one might wonder what it is people are supposed to do about these real-life mental predators.
Perhaps our hint is in Metal Gear Solid.
In Metal Gear Solid, Psycho Mantis seemed unbeatable. However, his “connection” to the player’s “mind” (actually the player’s controller) is through controller slot one. If the player physically disconnected the controller from slot one then inserted it into slot two, the player could still move Solid Snake (the main character), but Psycho Mantis would no longer be able to predict his movements. From there, Psycho Mantis is very beatable.
It might be time for us to consider using alternative devices and social media platforms, seeing that the tech oligarchs aren’t strongly considerate of the general population’s notions of ethics and privacy.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
Earlier today, new evidence was presented of widespread voter irregularity. The information was gleaned from Republicans who were polled and were phoned concerning their absentee ballots. The poll was of a sample of populations, it’s still an indication that something seems amiss, and therefore, an investigation is merited.
The following is a short video presented by Tim Pool, who explains what’s happening very well.
Over the course of this election, I’ve noticed a few trends that seem odd. Any one of them by itself might not seem too troubling, but as they add up, they collectively seem more suspicious.
Among these are:
A strong insistence on mail-in ballots, in spite of the fact that several European countries have banned them because they are rife with fraud,
The mistaken idea that the Associated Press decides the winner of the election,
An unawareness that the election is still ongoing, as votes are still being tallied, and electors still haven’t cast their votes,
The presumption on the part of the corporate media that Joe Biden is president elect, in spite of the previous point,
A hesitance to recount votes, in spite of the fact that it would hurt literally nothing, and lay concerns to rest,
That Republicans observers were barred from observing, and windows were obstructed when an assembled crowd attempted to observe for themselves,
Corporate media outlets are repeatedly insisting that the election went just fine, after years of going on about a baseless claim about Russian interference,
Repeated denial of evidence of irregularities or fraud in spite of the fact that this evidence is available to the public, and we can plainly see it,
There’s a lot more, but that seems more than sufficient to get people thinking.
If anything, leftists should be eager to do a recount at the request of right-wingers, if they are so confident that they actually won. That way, if it turns out to be the case, they could say, “That proves it, you happy?” The only reason I can think of that they’d be afraid of a recount is if it turns out that they didn’t win, either because they didn’t muster up enough votes, or there was enough improper or nefarious activity to sway the election.
Why is it that it’s the left-wingers who seem so afraid of the truth?