The Underlying Cause of the Immigrant Crisis: Attempted Election Rigging
What are we to do with the many millions of people who poured over the border during the Biden Administration, while the Biden Administration denied that it was happening and then denied that it could do anything to stop the flow of unvetted people over American borders?
I know this is a complex issue at this point, but it has been more and more clear to me that this movement of migrants across our borders was orchestrated by the Biden Administration for the purpose of electing Democrats in swing states. What to do with millions of people who are illegally here now? Especially given the negative impact mass unvetted immigration has had on many parts of the US, including increased crime. It's a big mess, but it's important to understand what happened and why. Joe Rogan sums it up well when discussing the possibility that Kamala Harris might run for president in 2028:
I'll ask [Harris] controversial things, man. It's all I have to do is ask you, Why [was] the border open?" We can talk about that for three hours. Oh my gosh. What are you trying to do? Right? You could close that border. Trump closed that border in a day. Amazing. In a day. You could say I hate what's going on with ice, and I don't like it either. I don't like this thing of like taking people.
And here's the thing, well, they should have done it the right way. But if you're poor and you live in a third world country, that's not an available option. Okay? What is an available option is this one administration over four years was encouraging people to go through, not only encouraging you to go through. There's Red Cross stops along the way. They give you maps. They tell you how to do it. People are being, they're funding people getting in. They're paying for air flights. They're flying people in. They're moving people into swing states. They're getting them on Medicare. They're getting them on Social Security.
We talked about this one lady who did an interview. She was being told to try to get people on permanent disability. So she was told to ask them, "Do you have back problems?" They're like, yes, okay, great, personal disability. Now that she she said I was told to view them as a client now, And so you're trying, essentially to bribe people to Now, once you get them in to move to swing state. Then they count on the census. Once they count on the census, it adds congressional seats. So it's like you're rigging elections by bringing in immigrants, and then you're giving them money.
And all these people that live in these poor communities, they're like, "Hey, where was all this money for us? Where was all this money for the people in Chicago? In Chicago? Where was all this money the people in Baltimore?" No, no, they're doing it because they're trying to manipulate the election. It didn't work. You know, it didn't work. Like, I got into an argument someone about it. But, yeah, it didn't work, though. I go, Yeah, but they tried to do it. It didn't work.
But they did move people to swing states. They did leave the border open for four years. They did let in millions of people. They don't even know how many. They don't know how many people got through. That's crazy. Once they got them here, they did give them EBT cards. They did give them cell phones. They did. They moved them into the fucking hotel, that Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, this luxury hotel filled with migrants. They paid for their food. They did do this. They encouraged people. They did have sanctuary cities where they weren't going to arrest them. They let them come in.
Every bit of the above is easily substantiated by searching first hand accounts on X. Almost none of it can be found in corporate media outlets. Therefore, there's no way to discuss it civilly with people "across the aisle" since, factually speaking, we come from two almost non-overlapping informational ecosystems.
Julian Assange Discusses Trump and Russia; Hillary Clinton and Russia
Julian Assange has proven himself highly principled and courageous. He has broken more meaningful stories in the past 20 years than all corporate media combined. in this video he discusses his findings regarding Donald Trump and Russia, as well as Hillary Clinton and Russia.
As summarized by RealRobert:
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton accepted a $3 million bribe from the Kremlin. Simultaneously, her top advisor and campaign chairman, Pizzaman John Podesta, received a $35 million bribe through Rusnano—a company widely known as “Putin’s Child.”The price? Control over twenty percent of the United States’ uranium supply, surrendered to foreign interests.
Uranium—the critical element for nuclear weapons.
The cost? Treason at the highest level.
The Gymnastics many “News” Providers Do with Verifiable Facts
Journalism is not merely about providing the facts. There are so many ways to manipulate, censor and palter even though one is using verifiable facts. This is an excellent post by Michael Nayna:
There are three information filters that allow journalists to bend reality using verifiable facts.#1 – Story selection. Each day offers thousands of stories, and editors typically highlight those that align with an ideological perspective. Politically inconvenient events can be ignored or buried with minimal coverage.
#2 – Fact selection within stories. The amount of details within a particular event is massive, and a journalist needs to choose which ones are relevant. I once worked with a journalist who had been covering a series of attacks on Indian students on public transport. The outlet’s interest was in the racial angle, but an interviewee mentioned other victims. She asked about their nationality, then chose not to pursue those attacks in detail because the victims were Australian. A single vague line made the final cut, and the piece implied racial motive when it couldn’t have been.
#3 – Framing facts with emotive conjugation. For instance, if I’m covering someone I don’t like, he’s cheap; if I’m neutral, he’s frugal; if I like him, he’s thrifty. Someone can be passionate, emotional, or hysterical; careful, hesitant, or cowardly; they can glisten, perspire, or sweat. This is subtle, but once you notice it, you’ll find that even though there’s better and worse news, none of it is purely objective.
J.K. Rowling’s Individual Points Regarding Gender Ideology
Speaking of assassinations, J.K. Rowling occasionally posts some of the many death threats she receives. They are shocking in their intensity and details. What has she done to deserve these threats? She recently took the time to spell out her positions on gender ideology. I follow these issues closely and I largely agree with her on these issues (though I have other opinions too and some of my view are more nuanced). This makes me wonder. Instead of framing the issue broadly as one of "gender ideology," I wonder how people would respond to the individual points that Rowling raises below? Or, at least, how would they respond if they could vote by secret ballot, without any fear that someone would harm or kill them? I assume that almost all people would agree with many or most of her positions. I would like to see the data.
Here is Rowling's Sept 1, 2025 post:
Here is Rowling's Sept 1, 2025 post:
As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?
That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?
That men don’t belong in women’s sport?
That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?
That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?
That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?
That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?
That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?
That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?
That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?
That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?
That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?
That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?
Let me have your thoughts.
Here's a good way to end this post, with Rowlings' post from yesterday:
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.
