Trova il tuo prossimo libro preferito

Abbonati oggi e leggi gratis per 30 giorni
The Election Infection Insurrection

The Election Infection Insurrection

Leggi anteprima

The Election Infection Insurrection

136 pagine
1 ora
Feb 15, 2021


This book uses internet sources to look at "the Science" of the COVID-19 virus, masks and lock downs, and some of the reporting on them, as well as the hypocrisy of leading politicians concerning the virus, President Trump, and the skewed reporting on them. The second half of the book sources the internet to examine some of the allegations of fraud and how the news media and social media platforms covered or censored news about them, specifically on the divisive rhetoric against fee free speech used to discredit those claims. Finally, this book investigates one particular article that outlines exactly who in big tech, unions, government and community protest organizations conspired together to leverage the control of information and to use intimidation to sway people's opinions in order to affect the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, and how.

Feb 15, 2021

Informazioni sull'autore

Paul Mazzacane is a devoted son, husband, father, friend and patriot. Born in Hamden, Connecticut in 1974, Paul studied English Literature at a local state university. Paul enjoys singing playing his guitar, playing with his children and reading.

Correlato a The Election Infection Insurrection

Libri correlati
Articoli correlati

Anteprima del libro

The Election Infection Insurrection - Paul Mazzacane

The Election Infection Insurrection:

How the news media, social media, big tech, and the democrat party hypocritically condemned President Trump, bullied Americans, then conspired to and stole the 2020 presidential election using fear of the COVID-19 pandemic, and what I learned about it using the internet

By Paul Mazzacane

For everyone who has died because of COVID-19 or has lost a loved one to COVID-19.

Thank you to my 3 wise men Tony, Tony and Anthony and, wisest of all, 3 wise women, Alice, Rosemary, and most of all, Mom.


It seems that as far back as I can remember, the answer to any dissenting opinion is the admonishment to follow The Science. I do remember a time when we followed the facts. It’s strange that the science does not always follow the facts, mostly because of who is telling us what the science is. Allusions to consensuses of scientists (who are rarely identified) are often used to lend authority to claims about global warming, its later incarnation as climate change, as well as the social sciences behind intersectionality, trans-individuality, and now, the COVID-19 pandemic. What consensus? Which scientists? Aren’t you curious? And doesn’t it seem, in the Information Age, that we can always find an opposing viewpoint to any claim (especially claims made by politicians)? There are websites devoted entirely to checking facts. Why, then, does it seem that television news and their internet news sites only offer this admonishment to follow The Science to people who present facts not included in their own media reports? Why do they seem to follow only some of the science? Or follow science some of the time? Why do they criticize and admonish some over others? And what is the science, what does it say, and according to whom? Asking these questions, and trying to answer them, shows only that, as usual, The Science is not decided in the way we have been told, if at all.

This book does not claim that all the actions described herein were illegal. Nor does make an absolute claim on truth. After all, without someone who committed illegal acts coming forward and laying it all out, there is no way to ‘prove’ my claim in the title in the literal sense. That said, I suspect that even if someone or even multiple people did come forward and demonstrably admitted to committing fraud, those confessions wouldn’t make the evening news or the news network reels. We do have the next best thing, which is a Time magazine article laying out the steps taken by many individuals in many industries to secure the win for President Biden. Add to that the many examples of suspicious activity outlined herein. Instead, this work is a call to look at as much of the evidence presented as possible, ask questions, and seek the truth for ourselves. While the internet is not the residence of all truth, or all the evidence, it is the tool at most people’s disposal in the Information Age. Multiple searches with different search engines most often yield similar but not identical results. In the last few years we have heard whispers of Google’s almighty algorithm, how it has been grown and trained to favor some results over others. I can attest to such experiences by comparing its results to those of other search engines. If you don’t believe me, test it for yourself.

The two parts of this book first review disparity between the science as learned and the science as reported, or The Science, and the second part focuses on the inequities in how the pandemic was treated and reported on in social media and news leading up to the 2020 election. My desire with this work is to help reawaken the need to know more, to be curious, to ask questions and seek truth, and finally to seek equity. As a culture, we have relegated our curiosity to soundbites and video clips. The terms ‘bite’ and ‘clip’ tell us that what is presented is not the entirety of a speech, interview, or other communique, but a part. Sometimes, a very small part. I understand that not many people want to watch C-SPAN if they can get the gist of a 12-hour Senate session by watching a pundit or so-called journalist sum it up in 30 seconds. Likewise, all that I present comes from internet news stories and search results, mostly focusing on the first page of results. I am asking us to be more curious than that, to dig a little deeper, to find more than one opinion, and especially, to seek out the opposing opinion, and to then use all that you have learned to decide. Long ago my brother-in-law told me the old proverb believe nothing you hear and only half of what you read. I would say that many of our news sources are only telling half of the story, so shouldn’t we seek out the other half? What I think we will find is that we as people have more in common than in opposition.

Regarding my biases, I will tell you up front that I deeply distrust ALL television and print news sources, herein referred to as the mainstream media or legacy media. I also do not believe in the veracity of every internet news source or fact-checker. I also deeply distrust the words of ALL politicians. I also, as a matter of preference, do not capitalize the names of political parties, as it lends them gravity I’m not certain they deserve. All of this doesn’t mean I hide behind skepticism, but rather try to use is as a tool. What I endeavor to do here is look at what I can find to be true and ask the wherefore and what about it. My conclusions, where I make them, are more to question further than to make or support a point of view or ideology. This pandemic and our response to it as a nation is not about science. It never was. If it were, the people in positions of influence would not be ignoring their own logic, taking part in social gatherings while admonishing the rest of us not to. This can only mean that either they don’t believe what they’re telling us, or they know it isn’t true, otherwise they would not ignore their own advice. This work may often seem to lean in one direction. I don’t personally care for the politics of it, I’m just presenting what I found on the internet by looking. The science we’re supposed to follow often comes from sources funded by and allied with the American Progressive movement (more on that in Part II), which is tied to multinational organizations and foreign governments (don’t take my word for it, seek and ye shall find, just please expand your search engine horizons first). The people telling us to follow The Science ignore simple biology when it comes to gender, despite warnings from the most prestigious universities (you can go down that rabbit hole on your own if you don’t mind being negatively labeled). If one would like to challenge gender roles in society, have at it, but like it or not, the biological science is not a lie. When they use the phrase The Science, they have a specific version of science in mind, that science which furthers their agenda. And that science is paid for.

I do believe that dishonest practices were employed in many cities across the US throughout the 2020 election. There are a few things we also need to accept in order to believe Joe Biden won a free and fair presidential election in 2020: first, that Joe Biden received 15 million more votes than President Barrack Obama in 2008, which is more than any presidential nominee ever, while underperforming Obama in every virtually demographic; that President Trump lost while receiving 10 million more votes than he did in 2016, while performing better in virtually every demographic; that unsolicited ballots mailed to every registered voter for a new mail-in voting program was done in a way that would eliminate opportunities for fraud, or at least not encourage it; and finally, that the six states/counties/cities where tabulation issues occurred, all of which happened to be democrat strongholds, gave honest and fair accounting of their votes and methods, and that all of the sworn affidavits attesting to irregularities are, as the mass media said of it, baseless. In total, losing those six states cost President Trump the election, with the total of votes separating the two in those six states equaled a total of 180,348 votes. If you are skeptical like me, good. If you believe the opposite, also good. I invite you to read on and challenge your convictions. In fact, the way in which I cite other works is intended to pique your curiosity, in the hope that you will dive in deeper and read these things for yourself (especially the Time magazine article cited at the end).

Part 1 – Just Follow the Science

At the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak, public health experts and some elected officials seemed determined to convince us that it wasn’t so bad. But soon, the mood changed, and fear was propagated through television news and across social media platforms. Businesses and schools across the country were ordered closed, leaving only necessary business open. Restaurants and bars in some states were not allowed to seat customers indoors, and, in some states, allowed to stay open only for take-out (though in some states like California, strip clubs were allowed to stay open). But what was the science these decisions were based upon? In a January 14, 2020 tweet, the World Health Organization reported that there was no human to human transmission of the virus, and identified its origin in

Hai raggiunto la fine di questa anteprima. Registrati per continuare a leggere!
Pagina 1 di 1


Cosa pensano gli utenti di The Election Infection Insurrection

0 valutazioni / 0 Recensioni
Cosa ne pensi?
Valutazione: 0 su 5 stelle

Recensioni dei lettori