Science has propelled human life to great new heights - and its bastardization is proving to be the downfall of western civilization
There was a time when science was all about discovering the truth of the world around us. It used to be that the scientific method was the golden rule and verifiable fact was always more important than scoring political points or achieving the results certain people want to see. Truth was truth and everything else was cast aside to the realm of fantasy.
Unfortunately that time is gone; while there are still thousands of real scientists around the globe that don't simply bend their knee to the highest bidder or bow to the "woke" mobs, their findings have been relegated to the fringe of public view, replaced by any findings (verifiable or not) that suit the modern political agenda of society's elite.
Though some scientific areas have remained relatively untouched by this phenomenon (such as the realms of physics, math, or computing, though even those are being encroached upon), others have been positively demolished in the name of modern "liberalism", bastardized beyond recognition not by new findings, but by the whims of what our current society (or more accurately, the loud and outspoken far-left fringe that has been thrust into the limelight) dictates.
In extreme cases that are becoming more and more commonplace, words have been given new meaning - biological sex is now a controversial topic, with gender being rebranded as a "spectrum" that can be changed to suit the will of any individual. Noting differences between the sexes is now taboo, to the point that pointing out the biological fact that men cannot simply become women because they feel like it and vice versa equates to "hate speech", a modern term used to police statements that don't fit the new "progressive" agenda.
Rather than opposing ideas based on merit or fact - the hallmark of a free and functioning society - modern "liberals" suppress opposition through intimidation tactics (including but not limited to spewing threats and vitriol online, publishing dissenter's personal information to the public, and attempting to get those who disagree with them fired from their jobs) and censorship courtesy of big tech oligopolies.
It has gotten to the point where psychologists who have correctly stated that gender dysphoria (ie. transgenderism) is a very real mental illness akin to other disorders such as anorexia, with a strong social component that indicates societal influence can actually cause people to develop the disorder, have been labelled as "transphobic" and attacked to the point of having their work completely disregarded and in some cases their jobs taken away from them.
No, scientists or anyone else for that matter aren't allowed to point out the real mental (and physical) harm these trends inflict on people, particularly children. We must not only accept it as a perfectly healthy way of life, but embrace it fully - even as children are being irreparably harmed by those that deem it healthy.
But the current "trans" delusion is hardly the only assault on science and logic - it is but the tip of the iceburg.
Climate science is one area that has had this issue for quite some time. It has long been politicized and has been brought to new extremes in the last few decades: fear-mongering predictions and flawed models have repeatedly been used to warn people of impending destruction if incredible action isn't swiftly taken (amazingly, the actions supposedly required almost always include a complete economic shift toward socialism, which has literally zero relation to climate).
Those apocalyptic predictions have repeatedly fallen hilariously flat as I've discussed in previous pieces - an interesting note about the "climate change" activists and the so-called scienctific papers published on the subject is that they heap the blame for every environmental problem they seek to address almost solely on humans, including temperature and weather. It's a laughable hypothesis that just like religion before it grandly overestimates the importance of the human race to the broader universe around us.
Claiming that humans contribute to climate change is one thing - no one is suggesting we have no effect, or that pollutants don't have a negative impact on the environment - but to claim that humans are the driving factor in today's changing climate is simply stupid and not backed up by facts or history.
Just recently near the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdowns in the western world many media outlets were covering how the sudden decrease in human activity and elimination of traffic was having a significant impact on the environment, some even calling for such a state to extend in order to "protect the environment".
With factories shut down and automobiles taken off the roads in much of the world, human-caused CO2 emissions were drastically reduced for several months, yet no discernable change in the rate of rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere was found - if human activity was truly the driving factor in the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and thus the driving force behind our current "warming" trajectory, as stated ad nauseum on every news program and "scientific" model you can find, you'd expect to see a significant decrease in the rise of CO2 levels found in the atmosphere during that time period.
But just like anything that contradicts the narrative, you won't find new studies questioning the logic of the failed models of the past - anything that fails to meet their desired goals is forgotten about and replaced with a new prediction using the same failing principles, the hypothesis never changing no matter what evidence is presented - in simple terms, it's the exact opposite of the scientific method.
A similarly stupid argument that has gained plenty of traction over the last few years is blaming climate change for natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and forest fires or that it's causing disasters that are far more "powerful" and severe than in the past.
Not only is this take incredibly ignorant of the past and the differences in data collection throughout our recorded history, but in the case of forest fires especially it is so easily attributable not to human-caused or climate change in general, but human stupidity and/or ignorance.
Forest fires are a natural process that have occurred for as long as there have been forests - in order to prevent this natural process from occurring, we know that steps must be taken. These steps include but are not limited to things such as clearing underbrush from the forest floors and controlled burns.
To see how those measures work, a simple test - do you remember hearing about how bad Texas wildfires have been on the news? How millions of acres of forest have burned down, coating cities in ash, killing and displacing countless animals, burning down thousands of homes?
Probably not, since it doesn't happen.
Despite having nearly twice as much forest land as California and similarly blistering (and even drier) summers, Texas doesn't see its state ravaged by uncontrollable wildfires every year like, say, California; why, you ask? Because they are smart enough to take the proper precautionary measures.
In the past few decades those measures have been significantly hampered in places like British Columbia, California, and Australia as climate activists and locals regularly complain about any controlled burns being performed thanks to the smoke they produce or the "loss of habitat" they may incur, not understanding that the small and very temporary inconveniences are vital in order to prevent the much larger inconvenience a raging and out of control wild fire brings with it (just ask Australia).
There's also the fact that most of these areas simply don't put the required resources into forest management, not understanding that the investment may seem to be throwing away money when it's working, but is in actuality saving much more in the long run.
One of the most ridiculous claims however, and one that is repeated ad nauseum by mainstream media outlets regarding climate "science" and many other controversial topics, is the idea of "scientific consensus".
Right away the claim is completely against the principles of the scientific method - a fundamental principle of science is that fact does not change based on how many people believe it or know it to be true. If every single person on Earth believes it to be flat, that does not make it so - opinions, no matter how widespread, do not provide proof.
One of my favourite quotes comes courtesy of a man that understood that concept like few others.
In response to a book refuting many of Albert Einstein's claims, which was titled "100 Authors against Einstein", the brilliant scientist quipped "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough".
How many scientists believe something has no bearing on whether they are correct or not, and indeed we'd still believe the Earth was the centre of the universe if this were true. It is an absurd talking point that tricks simple-minded people into believing something thanks to an intrinsic appeal to authority.
Not only does it have no place in debate, but it's also wildly inaccurate - the polls conducted on scientists regarding their thoughts on climate change have simply asked if they believe climate change exists, which is an argument made by no one, or if they believe humans play a significant role, not whether the driving force behind it is human activity, carbon dioxide emissions, or any other point of debate. It's as disingenuous an argument as it gets yet you'll regularly hear claims of "scientific consensus" regurgitated by simpletons on TV in place of intelligent discussion.
It's something that's regularly found when discussing any topic that inspires political debate, most recently with the coronavirus - if all the "public health officials" and scientists agree, then they must be correct!
Nevermind the thousands of scientists around the world that vehemently disagree on lockdowns, the (non) effectiveness of masking and social distancing, or the need for younger people to take potentially harmful vaccines...but then again, if projects like the Great Barrington Declaration that have thousands of signatures from scientists, epidemiologists, and medical practitioners from around the world are simply ignored by the media and censored from social media outlets, the consensus still stands right?
Speaking of the coronavirus, while the climate doomsayers continue on their crusade against our "impending doom", for the time being the liberal crowd has refocused their energies on their latest scam to impose their political will upon the population: the dreaded COVID-19.
COVID-19: The Dream of Tyrants and Elites
A topic I've covered in the past back when the hysteria was still setting in, we've recently passed the first year anniversary of "15 days to stop the spread".
Those who warned that sacrificing any freedom for a (false) sense of safety was a slippery slope that led to tyranny have been called conspiracy theorists and, ironically, fearmongers.
Yet time and time again, history repeats itself - people have allowed governments and so-called "public health experts" to dictate their lives to extents never seen before in modern democratic societies, their businesses crippled, their livelihoods ruined, their mental health in shambles, all in an effort to "stop" the so-called pandemic.
A year later, what has that left us?
We're worse off in every sense of the word, with no end to the violations to our fundamental rights and freedoms that were supposed to be violated "temporarily".
COVID-19 is still talked about daily as if it were a great plague despite its incredibly dismal fatality rate that is comparable to a bad flu season (what a shock!). Even with all of the safety theater we currently engage in (mandatory masking, social distancing, restrictions on visiting friends and family, etc.) COVID-19 hasn't been stopped from spreading anywhere.
Perhaps this is because, as studies have stated for the past several decades, masks don't stop the transmission of respiratory viruses nor does standing an arbitrary amount of feet away from everyone.
Instead of taking a look of the increasing number of studies (over 30 and counting) that have found little or no benefit of lockdowns when comparing countries/states with different or no restrictions and saying "well maybe our stupid idea of how to fight a virus was stupid", the so-called experts chosen to lead us simply doubled down.
When cases rise, it's the people's fault for not adhering to the guidelines strictly enough; when they fall, it must be because the guidelines are working, but don't let up or they'll rise again.
The failed models and projections from epidemiologists that were used to power this overwhelming response to the current pandemic is almost identical to the climate change alarmism that has swept up modern audiences, just on a more impactful scale.
The models for COVID-19 failed repeatedly and often by incredible margins, yet instead of having that discredit their bogus claims, they argue that the measures they imposed are the cause of the drastic discrepancy - even when countries without such measures managed to achieve the same numbers or better, or their own models claimed to take that into account.
Scientists have yet to explain why these measures have been applied to healthy people when study after study has failed to find asymptomatic/presymptomatic spread higher than...wait for it...0.7% of cases. As we've known for the past 100 years, people that are actively sick are the primary source of viral spread - not people that exhibit no symptoms, which is the entire premise of the term quarantine: isolate the sick so they don't infect the healthy. Instead, we've isolated everyone and wound up protecting...literally no one.
Places like California and New York have been praised by the media and Lord Fauci for their stringent lockdowns, nevermind the fact that places like New York and New Jersey actively killed thousands of elderly people with their policies of forcing COVID-positive patients to return to be cared for in said nursing homes, spreading it throughout the facilities like wildfire (and in the case of New York, then covering up the true extent of their deadly orders).
You certainly can't blame the public for outbreaks in nursing homes that have completely stopped visitations and left the elderly depressed and miserable as they live out their last days devoid of their loved ones' presence, yet still somehow nursing homes have been ravaged by outbreaks. The only explanation is that they're getting it from staff, but if trained individuals who have more stringent PPE measures in place than the general public are still spreading it, how on earth does a cloth diaper worn all day keep COVID at bay?
That certainly doesn't stop politicians and "health experts" from blaming "dissenters" for the spread though. And that's not even touching on the thousands of lives that could have been spared if "health experts" and many doctors had fulfilled their oath to "do no harm" rather than ignorantly putting COVID patients prematurely on ventilators (remember the ventilator "shortages" that the news was panicking about early on? that didn't age well) in what is tantamount to a death sentence.
Those that have imposed totalitarian restrictions on their populations have been lauded as heroes by the media even after their failures are made clear, from New York's Cuomo disaster to New Zealand's crippling lockdown state. Who can forget the gushing over the Czech Republic for their stringent mask protocols which led many media outlets to declare that the country "beat" COVID-19 last year? Perhaps they can revisit that claim considering they now have the highest death rate per capita in the world.
Meanwhile governors and officials who didn't panic and cause needless deaths have allowed their states to re-open and defy the lockdown approach that has proven to be far deadlier than the disease, such as Florida's Ron DeSantis, have been chastised by the media and other politicians, with claims that blood is on their hands and that they are killing their citizens for political points.
Ironically, those bastions of freedom amongst the growing totalitarian society we find ourselves in have continued to show lower death rates from COVID-19 and fewer cases amongst its populations despite following similar curves as the "righteous" states - and unlike the blue states, their economies and their citizens have sustained less damage in the process.
Masks, the so-called "best defense" against the virus as people have been arguing for the past year, has proven to be an absolute farce - yet once again, doubling down is quite literally the only answer the "experts" will provide.
The CDC recently issued a so-called "study" stating that not one mask, but two masks should be worn, leading the media and politicians to call for double masking and some people even arguing for three masks to be worn at all times. Because fuck breathing, that's why.
Of course this ignores the obvious question: if two masks are needed, how come this brilliant plan wasn't thought of from the start? Why did they only recommend one mask for the past year? Seems like they have blood on their hands if you ask me.
How about the famed "social distancing" that the "experts" have been reinforcing since the beginning of this power grab? Anyone who pointed out that six feet of distance between people is an entirely arbitrary number with no scientific data to support that it limits or stops the spread of respiratory viruses whatsoever, were labelled as conspiracy theorists and fools. Now the CDC and even the New York Times is admitting that the six feet rule is not based in science and never had any scientific backing. Huh, who'd have thought?
But wait, the real saving grace was to be the holy vaccines, delivered to us in record time from the virtuous pharma companies like Pfizer (which has paid out nearly $5 billion in penalties since 2000 for their upstanding work that has included illegal promotion of medical products, making false claims, various safety violations, and bribery), Astrazeneca (over $1 billion for similar violations since 2000), and Johnson & Johnson (over $4 billion for similar violations as well as price fixing) so that we can return to "normal".
These vaccines were developed and produced in record time - well within a single calendar year, despite the previous record being nearly five years - thanks to the fact the very trustworthy companies producing said vaccines were allowed to skip most of the safety trials normally required for such products.
Not only did they get to skip most of the safety procedures designed for, you know, making sure what people are being injected with is actually safe, but what many people don't know is that the vaccines on the market for COVID-19 are not typical vaccines.
In simple terms, a normal vaccine carries a dead or damaged pathogen such as a virus that your immune system can fully destroy, and in the process of doing so, create antibodies for. Those antibodies (which are remembered by your immune system so it can produce more should it encounter the virus again) become your body's defense against re-infection. When the virus is encountered again, your system should destroy it quickly thanks to said antibodies and you most likely won't even know you were ever exposed to the virus a second time.
Natural immunity can be obtained in much the same way, except instead of a dead or damaged virus, it comes from being exposed to the proper living virus which of course is more risky and (with a well-developed vaccine at least) far more inconvenient than getting a vaccine. This is why those that have been sick with a virus are immune from it (at least for a period of time) after they've recovered, barring an autoimmune disorder or extremely old age that renders the person unable to reproduce those antibodies.
Natural immunity can also be obtained by cross-immunity - some viruses may instill immune reactions that last years, decades, or even a lifetime, protecting you from getting sick from that virus in the future. In some cases however that protection shields you not only from that specific virus, but other similar viruses, which is called cross-immunity.
This immunity has been found to exist in people to protect them from COVID-19 - specifically those that have previously recovered from the (far more deadly) SARS virus which is from the same family as COVID-19. That cross-immunity was found in people that were infected with SARS way back in 2003, showing the potency of our natural immune system and how it can last for decades.
This cross-immunity has also been found in individuals who had not been previously infected by COVID or SARS and suggests some level of cross-immunity with other coronaviruses. This also demonstrates that an unknown portion of the population is already immune to COVID-19, which helps explain the extremely high numbers of asymptomatic cases.
Now with the COVID-19 vaccines however, rather than taking a dead or damaged virus and letting our immune system do its thing, the most common vaccines (from Pfizer and Moderna) being administered instead contain mRNA. These are essentially lab-created instructions for your body to create proteins, specifically a protein from the COVID-19 virus.
These instructions get your body to create a part of the virus itself so that your immune system can then find it and kill it.
The problem lies in the fact that this mRNA is created in a lab and is essentially the equivalent to genetically modified food - it may be very similar, but it's very unlikely the exact same thing. COVID-19, like HIV, has shown retrovirus-like activity, ie. that it can reverse transcribe to modify your DNA, just like HIV can - seeing such a capability and then thinking it's a great idea to produce proteins from said virus in your own body using genetically modified instructions doesn't sound like the brightest idea.
Perhaps it will work out well - after all, the companies selling them that ran their own trials of the vaccines say they work really well - but prior mRNA vaccine trials didn't always work out so well for the poor animals they were tested on.
In prior trials, the animals injected with such vaccines showed high levels of immunity to the specific virus they were vaccinated against, which was obviously very promising - however, when faced with unfamiliar variations of the viruses they were vaccinated against, many of those animals died outright.
Astrazeneca, whose vaccine one Bill Gates has heavily invested in, uses an adrenoviral delivery method rather than mRNA, which like the latest Johnson & Johnson vaccine, showed high levels of immunity in their studies. Though vaccines of its type have had much more testing over the years than mRNA, to date pharma companies have yet to produce a single adrenoviral vaccine that has demonstrated they can prevent disease in humans, with the only commercial vaccine of its type in use prior to COVID-19 being a rabies vaccine for wild animals.
Johnson & Johnson's vaccine, which according to them boasts a roughly 66% efficacy rate with only one dose required, is now being tested on infants despite the fact that children are virtually immune from COVID-19 and are not spreading it. Oh and by the way, this is the same company that knowingly sold baby powder with asbestos in it to the masses for decades and then covered it up. Seems really smart to let them near your baby to test out their great new product.
Since gaining the WHO's approval (the Gates-funded organization approved a Gates-funded vaccine? shocking!) the Astrazeneca vaccine has failed to produce the same results they bragged about outside of a lab, with studies showing a clear lack of efficacy and widespread side effects causing various countries to stop distribution of the vaccine entirely.
That isn't exactly promising, nor is the fact that pharmaceutical companies have gotten blanket protection from lawsuits should you experience side effects (or worse) from vaccines even if those effects aren't listed beforehand, with the only caveat being if you can prove they caused those effects intentionally. Good luck with that one.
Perhaps risking getting the "very deadly" virus is a better bet than getting unproven vaccines that have had no long-term effect studies or proven effectiveness from studies done outside of their own paid trials?
The vaccines, which were touted as the savior of the day and what would allow us to return to "normalcy", are now widely available in many places and despite having no long term safety analysis, sheep -I mean, people- are happily lining up to receive their shots - only to then be told by frauds like Lord Fauci that even after taking the vaccine, you still have to socially distance, wear your mask, and avoid people, making even the most ardent appeasers of authority question what the fuck is going on here.
People that have already recovered from the virus, and are thus protected from reinfection at a higher rate than even the "best" vaccine currently available, are being told by these same "experts" to take the vaccine anyway. It's as if everything we know about viruses and logic has been tossed out the window and replaced by only the dumbest ideas available.
The push for everyone to get vaccinated, regardless of if it is actually beneficial to them or is actually more likely to kill them than COVID given their age/health, continues to intensify and those that resist the pledge to become guinea pigs for big pharma's latest cash grab are being vilified by the media, politicans, and the useful idiots that follow them. Even members of the military who risk their lives to serve their country and protect its citizens are denigrated as "part of the problem" by Lord Fauci when they opt out of getting the questionable vaccines.
Despite his insistence on wearing masks even after being vaccinated, the afforementioned Lord Fauci touted the vaccine's efficacy by hailing Israel's 45% drop in positive tests over the prior month (which completely ignores the fact that the WHO finally revised their testing guidelines to reasonable thresholds, literally just days after Biden was inaugurated to coincide with a massive drop in worldwide cases) as a sign that their massive vaccine program is working...ignoring the fact that the US had a 70% drop in the same time frame, the UK (with far fewer vaccinations per capita than either) by 75%, and the worldwide average was dead even at 45%.
Once dismissed as another "conspiracy theory", vaccine passports are being discussed by governments around the world, and airlines and other means of travel are trying to implement their own requirements that would allow only vaccinated people to move freely.
Israel of all places has just passed a law that allows politicians to publish lists of the unvaccinated to shame them into taking the vaccines, a disgusting act that harkens back to the days of Nazi Germany when they experimented on Jews to develop and test pharmaceuticals.
The CDC in the US just issued travel guidelines requiring anyone above the age of two years old to have proof of a negative COVID test or having recovered from the virus recently to even be allowed to re-enter the US.
And for those that think this is going away anytime soon, think again; as many predicted, these vaccinations will need to be yearly, as confirmed by the CEO of Pfizer. And it doesn't stop there - Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson have all promised investors that they'll raise the prices of their vaccines in the near future to "capitalize on market conditions" despite the fact it was taxpayer money that funded their vaccine development.
As the media continues to consistently drum up fear with "new strains" (despite no evidence that any of these strains are more deadly), the COVID grift is nowhere near over - when pharma companies are raking in billions of dollars of easy profit, you can bet they aren't going to let that end without a long and arduous fight.
That also ties in to those who deny there's any "conspiracies" surrounding COVID-19, whether those theories revolve around the suspicious origins of the pandemic, the unscientific disaster of a response worldwide, the censorship and easily disproven disinformation being spread by supposedly "trusted" sources, or anything else - the retort is always something along the lines of "so you think that all the politicians and public health officials in the world are all involved in a conspiracy?"
Now ignoring the fact that, similar to the junk "scientific consensus" talking point, not all politicians and public health "experts" agreed or had the same response, but it's using a completely naive point of view.
For those that are quick to buy into "official" narratives and dismiss dissenting opinions, I advise they take some time to brush up on history, whether it be world history or the history of a nation of their choosing.
Conspiracies have constantly occurred throughout human history and continue to be uncovered every day, from minor local politics to the kind of disgusting and inhumane projects the likes of the CIA have conducted since before it was even called the CIA.
For such a thing to occur, it does not require all that many people to be "in" on it - specifically in regards to the COVID-19 situation, it is highly unlikely it was all orchestrated by one shadowy group with hundreds of members playing their parts like you might imagine in some sci-fi movie, but instead started as an information op (something very popular with intel agencies around the world) and was simply capitalized on by many bad actors because it presented an opportunity for themselves.
Politicans gained power and control they had only previously dreamt of in many western countries; mega corporations earned trillions and saw their competition decimated; pharmaceutical companies that already have a long history of corruption and unethical influence over the scientific sector and "health officials" raked in billions and set themselves up for record profits for years to come.
Did they need to be told what to do in order to capitalize on these opportunities? No, the opportunity presented itself and they took it, or simply followed in the footsteps of those that had. And like usual, it is the common people that are left footing the bill and feeling the consequences.
If you aren't highly suspicious of the entire situation, there's a simple question you should ask yourself - do you remember in the early stages of COVIDmania, when those videos of people falling over and dying in the middle of the streets in Wuhan were supposedly "leaked" from "whistleblowers" in China?
If so, ask yourself, how come nothing like that has happened anywhere else in the world despite COVID-19 being present throughout virtually every country around the globe?
It might be the single most obvious smoking-gun that the fear surrounding the "killer virus" was an info op, and if that doesn't make you question China's role in this, then consider the fact that China was in the middle of an ugly trade war with the United States for quite some time before this began, and after "failing to contain" the virus despite their "best efforts" their lockdown tactics became the de-facto response around the western world, shortly after which China took credit for defeating COVID-19 and re-opened the province of Wuhan (most other areas of China did nothing and yet didn't suffer any consequences either) while our freedoms are still under constant encroachment.
In fact China was the only major economy in the world that actually grew in 2020; while the rest of the world was crippled by their leaders and the fearmongering they consumed every day courtesy of mainstream media, China was selling the rest of the world everything from faulty test kits to surgical masks to everyday items from Amazon while local manufacturers and suppliers were shut down.
All of this and they just so happen to score a bonus in having a new president in the US that, unlike his predecessor, bends over backwards for China and has proven to be severely compromised not only by multiple other foreign countries, but by China specifically, including a $5 million "forgivable loan" (ie., doesn't need to be paid back) from China to the "Biden family".
The Great American Coup
Now how does any of this play into a coup in the US?
Simple - mail-in voting.
The 2020 election in the United States sported a level of blatant corruption that made even the most compromised third-world countries blush, but to see how things really got started we have to take a look into the country's past.
This is not the first fraudulent election in US history, but it is by far the most brazen and clear-cut, particularly with the flagrant media gaslighting following the fall of the western world's most sacred political tool.
The election in November was corrupted at virtually every level - from state courts unlawfully overruling constitutional and state laws to enact last-minute changes to voting procedures that allowed such fraud, to the influx of hundreds of millions of dollars to battleground state election boards from "non-profits" owned by Mark Zuckerberg, to the countless sworn affidavits from poll watchers, election workers, and even USPS drivers with claims that include everything from glaring irregularities in vote counts, illegal back-dating of ballots, illegal ballot verification (or lack thereof), double voting, voters using business addresses or empty lots as their supposed home addresses, deceased people voting (an old favourite for Democrats), and pristine (uncreased, indicating it was never in an envelope and thus not mailed) mail-in ballots which were somehow received in perfectly sequential order for hundreds of ballots which would be statistically impossible unless they weren't mailed.
Now to focus on the problems with the mail-in ballots, which was the most impactful and blatant form of cheating used in the election, we have to go back in time to the American Civil War and Abraham Lincoln's successful re-election in 1865.
With many of the eligible voters in the United States stationed on battlefields at the time, getting their votes by normal means would have proven quite impossible and given the fact that they were fighting for their country, they certainly deserved to have their vote counted - so instead of normal means, mail-in ballots were used.
Ironically, it was the Republicans that sought and passed mail-in voting as Lincoln was extremely popular amongst the troops, while the Democrats fought against it citing concerns of fraud. Of course when it came time to vote, it was the Democrats who then used the opportunity to commit said fraud.
They did so in a scheme that was undone by a Lincoln ally serving as a "double agent" (a lengthier piece on this historical scandal can actually be found from The Washington (com)Post but that's now behind a paywall).
A group of Democrats forged signatures on countless ballots that were supposed to be from New York soldiers, stacking up votes for George McClellan in extremely disproportionate fashion, with some batches registering over 400 votes for McClellan to a mere dozen for Lincoln (even those extreme and fraudulent proportions pale in comparison to what Democrats got away with in 2020). Those fraudulent ballots were then "verified" by an election official who was another fraudster in on the scheme.
Of course the fraud was brought to light and even if it had not, even a lopsided victory for Democrats in New York wouldn't have made any difference (Lincoln won in a landslide with 212 electoral college votes to just 22 for McClellan). Following their failure to oust Lincoln without bloodshed, Lincoln was assassinated just months later shortly after his second term officially began.
Fast foward some 156 years and we see an eerily similar pattern of election fraud but on a much larger scale, with fraudulent mail-in votes coming in droves and being approved by a system of fraudsters (that didn't even bother to hide it, making it all the more infuriating that they got away with it).
If you're reading this post, you probably know the jist of it by now - because of the "extreme threat" of the coronapocalypse, in-person voting was deemed too dangerous in many states, prompting politicized judges in state courts (who do not constitutionally hold the power to change election laws, only state legislatures do) to alter election laws to not only allow for mass unsolicited ballot mail-outs (which is extremely unsecure) but even allow additional time for late ballots and other unconstitutional allowances to be made in some places, particularly in key battleground states such as Pennsylvannia, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin amongst others.
One of the key disinformation campaigns disseminated by mainstream media outlets was the obfuscation of the difference between absentee voting and unsolicited mail-in voting - with absentee voting, the voter proves their identity and specifically requests a ballot which is sent by the government upon confirming their details, then the voter sends in their filled out ballot via the mail. While not immune to fraud, it is a much more secure method of voting as the voter's identity is confirmed before their request is granted and they then know they will receive one, and only one, ballot to return, which is again authenticated upon receipt.
In 2020 however, many states sent ballots to citizens en masse with no verification as to whether their voter information was up-to-date or correct, in many cases without those people knowing they should receive a ballot and some didn't even intend to vote. Reports of people receiving multiple ballots were widespread with election officials saying they could simply disregard any extra ballots and that verification would be done on the returned ballots to ensure no fraudulent votes were counted (unlike absentee ballots, where verification is supposed to be performed both on the returned ballots and with the initial request).
Yet when it came to election day, reports of voters being turned away at the polls after being told they had already voted became common in certain states, many of whom claim they never received any ballots in the mail.
Regardless of that and plenty of other shenanigans, Trump still led by wide margins on election day and had all but secured a second term, only for counting to halt in the evening as certain states claimed their election officials were done for the day and counting would resume in the morning. For hours the numbers didn't change, until, in the dead of night, counts started trickling in from battleground states.
Except these tallies were not like the others.
Lopsided numbers began pouring in for Joe Biden, with statistically impossible batches of hundreds of thousands of Biden votes to literal handfuls of Trump votes being recorded, people watching on TV or online dumbfounded at the bizarre tallies being added to the state totals.
Massive Trump leads in key states dwindled after incredulous batches of votes were counted in the dead of night in places like Georgia, Pennsylvannia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, key swing states that had all altered their election laws and had their counties receive millions in funding from Mark Zuckerberg-backed non-profits to "secure the vote's integrity".
Those incredulous counts were coming at times when poll watchers had been sent home for the night, no one watching over the electioneers who were supposed to be counting and verifying the ballots (signature matching, which is supposed to be performed to verify mail-in ballot authenticity, had abnormally low rejection rates compared to prior elections and requests for transparent audits were nearly ubiquitously denied following the counts, despite laws stating that people are to be allowed to view the verification process and audit ballots to verify an election's authenticity).
Not only that, but Republican poll watchers in certain areas were kicked out of buildings and were barred from seeing the counting process in places like Detroit (long known for their political corruption), with people inside the building covering up windows with cardboard in what news outlets said were completely inconspicuous attempts to prevent the public from recording what was going on inside.
Reports of tabulation "errors" and mistakes made with vote counts were rampant. In New Hampshire, a state that wasn't talked about much given its relative insignificance in terms of electoral votes, a 6% error rate was found on election machines being used (for comparison, the allowed error rate is a tiny fraction of one percent), that all coincidentally removed votes from Trump, yet the state's Department of Justice refused to investigate the matter further.
In Georgia, video evidence showed vote counters wait until poll watchers left the State Farm Arena for the night (they were unaware the arena's security cameras were recording the whole thing) to then pull out suitcases filled with ballots from underneath covered tables and count those "completely legitimate" votes unsupervised, the timing of which coincides with abnormal counts that favoured Biden in extremely disproportionate ways.
But what perhaps is even more incredible than the blatant fraud that took place was the nauseating gaslighting that took place during and after the election.
Surely they can't dispute what we can all see clearly on video?
Well then you underestimate modern media.
So-called "fact-checkers" debunked the video by citing the election officials caught on camera, with their claims that the poll watchers simply all left at the same time of their own volition and weren't instructed or told to do so, and so they simply continued doing their jobs. The suitcases were also under the tables all day while they were still there, proving the ballots weren't in any way different.
No seriously, this is the trash that the media went with.
As for the hundreds of millions of dollars given to counties across various battleground states, all in areas where allegations of fraud and illegal election activity were rife, from corporations that all lean substantially Democrat?
Well, I shit you not, Time Magazine featured a massive piece that confirmed what so-called "conspiracy theorists" had claimed - that a shadowy cabal of elites had conspired to rig the election. Yet Time Magazine's article painted that "shadow campaign" as a bipartisan saviour of democracy, the powerful elites meeting in the shadows and pouring ridiculous amounts of cash all to...save the election. Save the election for whom, I wonder?
Don't believe me? Read it yourself.
Dozens of lawsuits brought forth following the election, from filings from Trump's campaign to ordinary citizens to political watch-dog groups, were dismissed by courts not on the merits of their claims, but for "lack of standing".
Hundreds of sworn affidavits have simply been ignored by the courts, the witnesses that have been vilified, lost their jobs and reputations because they were willing to stand up for the truth never getting their day in court, while politicans and election officials who refuse to go under oath slander them as liars and dismiss all allegations as conspiracy while providing no evidence to support such claims.
The same statistical tools used by US intelligence agencies to determine whether elections are rigged in third world countries, such as the recent election in Uganda, all show that there is an extremely high probability of fraud in the 2020 US presidential election, yet discussion of such matters is just engaging in disinformation according to our media overlords.
The great state of Texas, which was then joined by Trump himself as well as plenty of other states, filed a massive lawsuit against several of the states mentioned above for their unconstitutional changes to election laws. Despite it being a constitutional requirement for the Supreme Court to hear any and all suits between states, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, once again, for "lack of standing", claiming that one state cannot dictate how another state runs its elections and is not affected by their outcomes.
This is perhaps the greatest dereliction of duty in America's history - not only did the citizens of the United States deserve to hear and see evidence from both sides about the alleged corruption to clear up the situation (if there wasn't any fraud, shouldn't they want to make that clear to everyone?), but to claim one state lacks the standing to sue another state for a violation of constitutional law is perhaps the most nonsensical claim a US court has ever made.
It goes against the entire basis of the United States of America - the states banded together and signed the constitution as an agreement, an agreement with which all states must abide; the choosing of the federal government, which holds weight over every state, is perhaps the most important part of the entire system, and if one state does not abide by the rules set out in the constitution and therefore chooses its electors fraudulently, that affects every other state and dilutes the power of the honest electors.
The absolute mockery of justice that came from the highest court in the land showed that the corruption and cowardice is not only abundant in the USA, but it has taken over every aspect of the government, from the local level bureaucrats all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And yet, despite the clear corruption and failures of the courts, there are still some judges that care about the rule of law - in a decision that has gone completely ignored by media outlets, a Michigan judge has ruled that the Michigan Secretary of State (a Democrat of course) unlawfully altered election laws - the very claim that the Attorneys General of Texas and other states brought to courts yet saw their claims ignored.
In Arizona, another state that was rife with fraud in the 2020 election, the Arizona Senate just announced that they would be doing a full audit of Maricopa county's 2.1 million votes, the largest county in the state, along with tests of the voting machines - it seems like it's a bit late especially if claims of ballot destruction are accurate, but if ballots aren't preserved that's a criminal charge anyway and would just be further proof of foul play.
This rant barely even scratches the surface of the bounty of evidence of corruption and fraud that took place in the 2020 US presidential election, but just like that, the realities of the most fraudulent election in US history have already been cast aside thanks to big tech and the media.
We live in a truly Orwellian time; rather than living in an open and free society like we once did, those that would question the mainstream narrative are being silenced en masse. Discussion no longer exists; only the narrative survives, with anyone that opposes it labelled a dangerous conspiracy theorist or unhinged racist.
Social media platforms have decided in unison to censor and ban any content related to election fraud from 2020 - from Facebook to Twitter, to Google search results and even Youtube videos. No matter if it's factual or merely stating an opinion, it is removed; anyone who dares question "the most secure election in history" (really, election officials in various states have claimed this) is dangerous and wrong and should not be allowed a voice.
Anyone that questions how Joe Biden somehow utterly shattered voting records set by Obama and inspired turnout well over 90% only in critical areas that secured his victory, is shut down as a conspiracy theorist. This is a candidate whose prior presidential bid failed in mere months after he was caught lying about everything from claiming a drunk driver killed his wife to graduating at the top of his law school class, who hid in his basement while his opposition drew crowds of tens of thousands of rabid supporters, whose cognitive decline is apparent to anyone whose head isn't stuck up their own ass, who had a campaign that couldn't garner anywhere near Hillary Clinton or Obama's level of support and lost black and hispanic votes yet because of a few key disputed areas was able to take home the "win".
Anyone that brings up the fact Biden underperformed Hilary almost everywhere besides a few key battleground states (and in particular, certain counties in those states that had disproportionate vote tallies) that swung the election in his favour, isn't merely questioning what happened, but they are a danger to society and are spreading disinformation.
Pointing out the fact that the only other time in history a candidate has won Florida and Ohio yet lost the presidency was in 1960, in another election rife with fraud (though nowhere near on the same level)? That's just harmful conspiracy stuff.
The fact that Trump dominated nearly every bellwether county, and the counties that swung Biden's way following election day were supposedly from record black voter turnout in cities like Detroit and Atlanta, yet Biden's black and hispanic vote share were lower than Hillary's and comparable counties in other states saw no such surge, these are all just coincidences. The fact that every discrepancy, every vote tabulation "error" found, every statistical anomaly found all flows one way and favours just one candidate? That's purely another coincidence, nothing to see here folks.
In perhaps the most Orwellian fashion possible, the perpetrators of the coup and their allies in the media blamed not Biden and the Democrat party, but instead claimed it was Trump and his allies that were attempting a coup - that his claims of election fraud were baseless and were his attempts to steal a second term, and then the January 6 "insurrection" that he "incited"...
In what is hard not to call a false flag operation, Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused Trump's offer of deploying the National Guard and the Capitol Police's requests for such aide when there were "threats of violent protests" as the electors were being certified at the Capitol.
While Trump was still holding a rally miles away from the Capitol Building, in which he explicitly called for his supporters to peacefully protest and obey law enforcement, a group of "Trump supporters" led by known BLM and Antifa activists such as John Sullivan supposedly breached the building's defenses (plenty of since-deleted videos on social media showed Capitol police letting people into the building).
Instead of looting (besides a few unfortunate-looking people taking the odd item like a podium or Pelosi's computer) or setting the place on fire like BLM activists that the media loves, the so-called insurrectionists merely wandered around the building as if they were on a tour, even queueing up in orderly lines to make their way through the Capitol as they took selfies and shot video of the "people's house".
That didn't stop cowardly Senators and House reps from cowering behind their chairs like frightened children and regarding the events as an assault on democracy and "one of the darkest days in American history". Democrats then impeached Trump a second time, falsely claiming that Trump incited the "riot" and tried to overthrow the government, even though it happened right when Republican Senators and House reps were protesting the electors in certain states, therefore harming Trump the most.
There were two deaths as the result of said "insurrection" - a woman who was on video as being let into the building by police, who