The Matrix is Now Acknowledging Rampant Election Rigging - Why It Matters

Reading the tea leaves amidst constant chaos requires a long memory

It wasn’t so long ago that even suggesting states should count ballots in a timely manner, or that observers should be able to monitor ballot tabulation, would get you banned from Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, or kicked off of whatever conservative-adjacent news show you had a cushy seat on. This mass censorship led to many people voluntarily leaving Twitter in the darkest days of early 2021 and joining forces alongside the exiles on a new frontier, Telegram.

Now Telegram, at least in the U.S., is in a downward spiral. Posts there get about a third of the exposure they once did now that everyone has flocked back to X under Elon Musk. Much has changed in five years. The Biden regime is gone, replaced by the same president they shoved out of the White House with a fraudulent election, and very rarely do we hear anything about “81 million votes” unless presented from our side in Kari Lake-style mockery. They know that number is way too unbelievable and have instead centered any discussion of the 2020 quasi election on President Trump’s response to it, which culminated in the events of January 6, 2021.

As I documented in my book, The American War on Election Corruption, 40% of Americans didn’t trust Joe Biden’s victory was legitimate in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election. The number of Americans lacking trust in that election (and all elections) being decided fairly rose as high as 66% in 2023, and still hovers over 60% today. Roughly 5 out of 8 Americans lack faith in an elections system once thought to be the envy of the world and designed to bolster a Constitutional Republic. In short - we respect the results of legitimate elections instead of organizing in the streets and slaughtering one another for access to the levers of power and control over the direction of government.

That contract exists only as long as the public thinks it is getting a fair shake. For years, “election deniers” have been railroaded, lost jobs, and marginalized for pointing out the obvious - that our elections hold much in common with processes and outcomes found in Third World nations. Trump, being the once-in-a-generation communicator that he is, mocked the machine so relentlessly that people now ridicule Biden’s win (supposedly the largest haul of popular votes ever obtained) in casual political conversation. Those who once held “let it go” opinions are now on the edge of the trench, bayonets fixed, suggesting all hell is about to break loose when it comes to election truth coming out. Last month, I wrote about Susie Wiles’s about-face on the 2020 election, and why it signals accountability is coming:

A recent comment from Ms. Wiles:

We had a lovely dinner and at the end of it, he wanted to know why he won Florida but maybe struggled in some other states—that I think we’re going to find out he actually did win.

Granted, this is a “friendly” making this comment. So, what exactly is new on this front today? Let me show you.

Meet Nate Silver, Stephen Richer’s long-lost twin. Nate is a pundit with a large following on the center-left. One thing I like about Nate is that he’s a huge baseball nerd, which I relate to tremendously even if I feel somewhat detached from today’s game and MLB branding begging for approval from left-wingers who hate everything about American traditions, anyway. Silver hit it big two decades ago with his own brand of analytics and election tracking, and nailed the Obama-era elections with only a handful of misses.

Since then, he’s failed to adapt his methodology to handle the Trump era. Last time around, he fashioned a model that made the election essentially a toss-up when Kamala Harris never truly led it for a single day of the campaign. It was essentially Harris 50.000001 to Trump 49.999999:

FINAL Silver Bulletin 2024 presidential election forecast

So, the left-wingers get the copium they must have to survive Election Day/Night, and when Trump inevitably wins, he was essentially working with even odds, right? That’s called splitting the baby. Well, yesterday, one of the most fascinating X post flurries I’ve seen in a while came across my feed, and it was a doozy:

Huh?

You mean to tell me I lost a six-figure career over calling out the obvious five years ago and now you can acknowledge this as if you were telling someone it was going to be hot in Arizona this summer? Then it clicked to me - there are marching orders floating around to start easing this conversation into the public psyche, and it seems linked with Susie Wiles’s statements I dissected last month.

Change appears inevitable, and the matrix appears to be tipping off what comes next.