Two narratives are quickly forming in opposition to each other. One narrative is the mainstream story about election night. The plot of this story goes that Joe Biden won the presidency, and even though the polls misfired wildly, the Democrats will have to go through some soul-searching to see why Trump came so close to re-election.
The other narrative is the more realistic one. One political camp in the United States, the “liberals” to which we refer when we discuss left and right, had come collectively to view Trump as such a menace that they entertained strategies of containing him that they would have not entertained in previous generations. Justifying their actions based on a fear-driven view of Donald Trump as a dangerous demagogue, liberals brushed aside many of their time-honored beliefs — free speech, skepticism toward the FBI and CIA, concern for the working class, opposition to xenophobia — and marshaled anti-Russian vitriol, censorship, complicity with state intelligence, and dark money to block any means of a Trump victory by the people’s vote. In essence, they cheated and stole the election from the rightful winner.
When confronted with these two narratives, people have to decide which to believe. The decision hinges on what you think people are capable of. More specifically it hinges on what you think liberals are capable of, because the major questions about election fraud involve states under Democratic leadership that seem to have shown large margins favoring Trump on the night of November 3, 2020: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.
This is where my twenty years of experience in academia help me discern what is happening. Academia’s overwhelming liberal bias affords us one benefit: college campuses are microcosms revealing to us, with almost scientific detail, what liberalism looks like in a state with no conservative opposition. The judges, journalists, leaders, businessmen, and artists of the country were almost all educated on college campuses. So liberalism also has a concrete link to what we deal with now. The same faction that has an interest in Joe Biden’s assumption of the presidency also runs college campuses with political impunity.
Below are some of the things I learned about liberals while working in academia. In total they reveal to me that liberals are capable of doing all the things that we would have to believe they are capable of doing, if we are to give weight to the suggestion that the Democrats are trying to steal the presidential election away from Donald Trump.
- Even though they decry cheating, liberals create environments where cheating is pervasive. And they cheat.
When I first taught college students in 1999, I remember the total disbelief with which I listened to students claim they did not cheat or plagiarize. Even when I had the evidence right in front of me, the student could look me in the eyes with completely convincing innocence and swear the sections he or she copied off the internet were an honest mistake.
At some point I stopped trying to catch students cheating and simply graded their work on a seven-factor scale that included one criterion: Did they follow the instructions? Since sections copied from the internet rarely relate to the instructions I have given a student, this is a quick way to slam the student with a bad grade they don’t want. The natural incentive is driven home and the student wants to avoid a low grade, thereby having to produce original work geared toward the question I assigned.
But the massively progressive workforce of professors and administrators fulminate constantly against plagiarism. They speak of plagiarists as if speaking of predators, insisting that teachers should report them so they are caught and don’t turn up in other professors’ courses. This is totally hypocritical because academia’s subjective criteria for advancement lead naturally to all manner of cheating among the adults who are lecturing the students about it.
Professors cheat all the time by getting their friends or lovers hired. I knew of countless cases where faculty slept with graduate students and then helped them land plum jobs they weren’t qualified for. To clear the path for such nepotism they must block bright and talented people, of course, which might mean fabricating gripes against other candidates’ work or purposefully digging up gossip about them and blowing it out of proportion.
Administrators cheat when they apply for grants. Researchers routinely suppress data that doesn’t suit their agenda or findings that might cause them the kind of trouble that afflicted Paul McHugh at Johns Hopkins University or Rebecca Tuvel at Rhodes College. They find all manner of ways to derail the tenure files of people they see as threatening, while they pad and shield the promotion files of people they want to help get ahead.
In academia people make “the phone call” behind the scenes all the time to carry out plans that they know conflict with professional ethics. They get people blacklisted with those backdoor phone calls, or feed misleading talking points to reporters in order to avoid scrutiny from watchdogs.
The world of funding offers a gateway to a vast world of dishonesty and chicanery, as people apply for grants that they know require that they skew important findings. Perhaps most prominently, when I was involved in the debates about gay adoption, I saw how many people published studies showing the positive effects on children of being raised by two gay men or by two lesbians. The samples were carefully handpicked and respondents who had unflattering experiences were shoved aside. In my case, after publishing the narratives of dozens of same-sex parenting cases that fared poorly, activists traced my relatives and harassed my coworkers. My dean at the time, a feminist lesbian, was happy to provide information to off-campus militants such as copies of my work emails (which I never intended for the public) and details about my travels.
Whenever you hear that someone won an “excellence in teaching award” you should be highly skeptical. Most of the people who won that award, where I was teaching, were not good teachers, but they enticed students to nominate them and then used their connections with the awards committees to assure that they’d get their prizes.
Liberals cheat so often that it’s second nature to them and they hardly even notice it. Everyone in academia would give up-and-coming faculty little pep talks, basically telling them “this is the way things are done” and demonstrating the long-term value of making your file look spectacular no matter how many false claims and embellished accomplishments it took to look that good.
Having dealt with liberals in academia, I have no doubt that liberals in the Democratic Party are capable of engineering a massive nationwide fraud that was supposed to go up without a hitch on November 3, 2020, complete with arsenals of fake ballots kept in secret storage, to be taken out as soon as people knew exactly how many ballots would need to be delivered to advance Biden past Trump. The precision with which new ballots are found twelve hours after the close of polls, all favoring Biden, stinks to high heaven of liberal concertation. In a nation with highly advanced STEM professionals there is no excuse for relying on people who can’t count ballots in time to announce who won their district by election night. Having served on personnel committees for academia, I know a thing or two about liberals laying out a five-year plan for tenure complete with carefully crafted tricks and deceits.
2. They hate conservatives with a frightening intensity.
Whatever you’ve heard about the anti-conservative bias on college campuses, you must multiply it by five and then you’ll get a sense of university reality. Liberal faculty at Cal State Northridge, in Los Angeles, treated me with the contempt they’d show to a stray dog. In January 2010, I left for a semester’s leave to do basic training in the Army reserves. When I returned, I saw the marks left when someone dragged a knife or sharp object over my Army stickers and my American flag. This vandalism was sitting there for everyone to see, even though my close friend J— had told the department about it. They left my door humiliatingly vandalized for at least two months, purposefully making it so that when I returned from my tour in August 2010, that image would be the first thing I would see when I came back. I filed a police report but the campus police never questioned any witnesses and dropped the case.
The chair of the department called me into his office to scold me for posting a statement denouncing the vandalism on my door. He was the child of Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II and saw no contradiction between his scholarship about racism and the fact that he was punishing me for speaking out against violent hatred.
Needless to say, anyone else in the department would get a pity party for the slightest uncharitable gesture. For me they reserved a particular dehumanization because I was conservative and had not hidden the fact. No amount of politeness or charm on my part could fix the situation, because even if I could become friends with one or two people in the department, eventually the others would approach that friend privately and scold him for talking to me.
We could write many books analyzing why liberals in academia hate conservatives to the point that they enjoy seeing them humiliated and take their mere existence in their midst as a grave affront meriting vicious outrage. I have written such books: WACKOS THUGS & PERVERTS, and most recently a chapter in CHURCH & STATE.
I know from extensive experience that a level of hatred exists among liberals toward conservatives, which liberals have normalized and now accept as second nature. Because of this, I have no doubt that liberals hate conservatives enough to feel that any deceit or abuse of Trump voters is, rather than too harsh, far too lenient. They would have rather seen Trump voters publicly flogged. I am serious. Liberals don’t care if conservatives get fired, can’t feed their families, and have nervous breakdowns (they showed no remorse for driving Mike Adams to kill himself.) And this attitude is absolutely everywhere in academia, so commonplace that liberals think it’s not only normal but praiseworthy and righteous.
My conclusion? Absolutely, they would defraud Trump voters of their suffrage. They would destroy their ballots. They would mock them gleefully while setting fire to their votes and filling out fake pro-Biden ballots under their name. Hate on such a scale makes that behavior possible.
3. Liberals are artful about preserving the appearance of objectivity.
The creepiest thing about academia was the elaborate lengths to which liberals would go, in order to persecute and target individuals while maintaining a façade of impartiality. At one point when tensions ran high between me and the dean who oversaw me, Elizabeth Say. One day the dean sent out an email to everyone in the College of Humanities that they should expect a visit from the IT professionals to do a “refresh” on our computers. The dean’s sister had been assigned to work in the office down the floor from mine. I had a friend in the department who told me that during the week, the IT professionals came during a time when the dean’s sister knew I would not be there, and the dean’s sister let them into my office–but nobody else’s on the whole floor.
This was in the spring of 2016, when I had suspected for quite a while that people in the dean’s suite were spying on me through the work computer. Two students had come to me to warn about this. I had arrived at my office several times to find my computer on when I knew I had turned it off, and to find my Facebook or gmail account open as if someone had been rifling through my account. My dean, Elizabeth Say, was the leader of the campus branch of the Clinton Global Initiative at that time; Kamala Harris, the California DA and wife of a Cal State Northridge alumnus, was running for Senate; Karin L. Stanford, the mother of Jesse Jackson’s child, had briefly served as the associate dean alongside Elizabeth Say and overseeing me; lastly Rudy Acuña, a sour and aging Chicano Marxist, had sent me links to homosexual pornography that I had avoided clicking but had rather forwarded to the sexual harassment office. By the spring of 2016, I had been publishing pro-Trump articles and had attracted attention for organizing conservative conferences. So the concern about people spying on me through the work computer connection was absolutely rational. I had ample reason to suspect that someone might plant something malicious on my computer without my approval; I had already endured vandalism and threats at that job, and in spring 2016 violence at California’s Trump rallies had escalated. I had already known that the technicians working for the dean had the ability to log into my computer from their work stations in nearby Sierra Hall, because at one point I came into the office and saw things moving on my screen, and when I called the desk, they told me they were doing work on my drive remotely.
Because of all these concerns about spying, I had in fact disconnected my work computer, unplugged all the wires, and hidden the computer carefully in my office. This had happened several weeks before the dean sent the IT professionals into my office–and to nobody else’s. When my friend informed me that someone had come into my office without telling me about it beforehand, and had left, I called the IT department and asked what was happening. Several times someone took my call and promised to call me back, but they never did. Then suddenly I received an email from the dean directly (mind you, I was an associate professor and several levels removed from the dean), asking me to fill out an attached police report as a way of explaining why the computer had been removed contrary to university policy. I replied that I had not removed the computer from the office. She replied again asking me to clarify what this meant. This game of cat and mouse went on for a few emails until I ultimately asked her to contact my union representative because the police report did not seem to match the faculty handbook’s procedures.
Here’s why I mention this bizarre story. Why did the dean send an email to EVERYONE in the college telling them to expect a visit from IT, when it seems she just wanted to find out what happened to my computer? From what I established, nobody else’s office was visited that week on a floor with over twenty other work computers. The dean is several levels removed from me, so the mere fact that she, rather than the chair or department secretary, would be emailing me with a police report, showed that something was astir and her pressure on me about the computer was individually targeted. To this day I don’t know why she felt so pressured to get access to that device. But the dean’s purpose was to snag me in some computer-related issue. Why not just send IT people to my office and not post an announcement to all 150 humanities professors about it? Better yet, why not just visit my office while I’m there and ask to see my computer? Whatever the nefarious reason was, she didn’t want me to see what they were doing to the computer. An educated guess is that they were doing something with my computer all along and then found their dirty work interrupted when I disconnected the cables, but they couldn’t make things worse by telling me what they were doing.
The question comes again, why come up with a fake story about everyone getting a “refresh”? Therein lies one of the secrets to liberal perfidy I learned in academia. The very structure of liberal communities is Maoist in its collective surveillance. Appearances are extremely important, and liberals spend inordinate amounts of time staging their performative moments. They think about all the possible ways that their behavior might provoke reactions or leave them exposed. And liberals are mostly united in the belief, however superficial, that their ideals are universal and good even as they find themselves targeting individuals in particular and petty ways. So they engage in elaborate ruses to make their victims believe that that any suspicion of the liberals’ wrongdoing is imaginary and probably sprung from paranoia. “Look, here, see this email sent to everyone.” Even when liberals know they are acting nasty, they need to nourish their self-image as “fair” for both spiritual and pragmatic reasons. If they can, they want to cling to the belief that they are fair. Also, they don’t want to be caught.
Countless incidents such as my 2016 computer kerfuffle have taught me that liberals usually expose their wrongdoing when they have explanations that sound reasonable to them but which look obviously incriminating and ridiculous. Because of this, I have zero doubt that liberals are capable of telling America they are innocently collecting late-mailed ballots while in reality they are fishing out Trump votes and assiduously inserting Biden votes. The more they cite laws and insist they are unbiased, the more they appear to have overly rehearsed their performance of impartiality, which only proves that something sinister enough to require such premeditation is afoot.
4. They are masterful at manipulating committees, commissions, and panels.
Academia loves the odd-numbered panel of experts tasked to do something, usually busy work employed as a pretext for something else.
Consider this additional farrago. In the last weeks before I left the job at California State Northridge, I received a memorandum signed by four of my colleagues, expressing their collective concern about my performance. The dean had cited her powers under the faculty handbook to force me onto a personnel committee with four other professors, including two of her obvious minions, one who was always sure to be found on lots of committees where she assisted the dean’s cause, and a South Asian woman involved in a lot of queer theory and cinema. The other two professors on the committee were a Korean philosopher and an Armenian language expert. Our job was to review personnel files for tenure and promotion. A host of onerous rules were imposed on us, which dictated that we could not take home records of the evaluation letters we wrote. From the beginning the workload was imposed, quite “coincidentally,” unfairly, because I ended up having to review more files than the other people on the committee. The departments they assigned to me, in addition, were given an extension of nine days to turn in their files, so I had less time to review them. One day when I came to the office to review files, the files were missing, and I emailed the committee head to let her know, only to be told to see if the dean had it. The dean returned the missing files after we had already started meeting to discuss the files.
Because everything was confidential there was no way for me to retain copies of the letters I produced. So the other four committee members, speaking in smarmy and passive-aggressive HR terms, said that I consistently did less work and made many errors in the letters I drafted, without giving any quantitative facts to back up their accusation. How many files did I work on? More than they had! Did I turn in all the files we needed on time? Yes! What errors? Could they name a single one or be specific? No!
Letters such as this are one of the few silver bullets that a mean-spirited dean can file against a tenured professor she wants to banish from the campus. I appealed to the union, but then the union said that there was no procedure to grieve a letter from my colleagues, so the letter would remain in my file. It would be different if it came from the dean, of course. I provided all the evidence showing that their accusations were entirely inaccurate, to the extent that I had emails showing our work flow, indicating that they gave me more files and less time, and so on. I missed no meetings and no deadlines. My counter to her letter went into my file beside hers, but the impact she desired was obvious: She wanted to let me know that the other four professors would do her bidding. She had set up a unique trap, a committee that had total confidentiality and in which my four peers could carry out her dirty work for her, leaving me with no way to return fire. The dean sent me a little memo informing me that she looked forward to seeing me serve on the same committee with the same four professors the following year. Just in case I was thinking of not leaving the job.
This kind of jockeying and backdoor plotting based on getting the right people seated in the right places to carry out long-term and utterly invidious search-and-destroy missions, is so common in academia, I dare say it is the height of liberal social engineering. Having seen so much of it, I have zero doubt that liberals will pull behind-the-scenes strings with district courts, election commissions, ballot review teams, secretaries of state, and all the rest, so that everyone will back each other up and throw their collective weight behind the legitimacy of obviously bogus vote counts. Liberals are seasoned at precisely this kind of manipulation. Of course they will place secret calls to reporters to coordinate the public messages while they privately rig and defraud ballots. They can rig an election by running the inspection boards in their sleep.
5. They want the power to enact their ideas badly enough to do almost anything.
The liberals in academia do not just have scholarly expertise. They have strong opinions about the way the world should run. Given such authority over the minds of young people, they come easily to believe that they are right about everything and the existing world is a disappointing failure to live up to their high-minded standards. Living in such a painful disconnect between the ordinary commonsense world that grows their food and trades their retirement fund shares on the one hand, and the impractical hypotheticals of their ideological fantasies on the other hand, liberals develop a kind of sadism toward people they think should agree with them but who don’t.
Never have I experienced as much racism as I encountered from white liberals at Cal State Northridge. Three weeks after starting work the head of creative writing asked me to hold a cigar and fake a Cuban accent in front of a graduate class led by a gay colleague who apparently saw nothing with this humiliating use of my ethnicity to stage a scene from a colleague’s play. When I revealed that I didn’t like the way this white liberal was treating me, the hostility to me escalated. The head of creative writing would go on, in later years, to denounce me for my work in national security; he would even circulate rumors that I was recruiting for the CIA and was trying to implement state-run subversion of the university’s academic rights. One day as I walked through the office his wife suddenly barked at me about my having promised to buy their daughter’s Girl Scout cookies.
Liberals hold beliefs that place them constantly at odds with reality, and instead of questioning their beliefs, they come to hate the people stuck in the world’s reality. To overcome this crushing disappointment, they become ever more desperate for power, always wanting one more chance to force their vision on the unwilling people unfortunate enough to populate their surroundings.
Because I saw this so much, I have no problem believing that liberals would work together to defraud an election. They want to defeat Trump the way many people want to breathe and eat; it is existential for them. Why? Largely, because they see in the alternative to Trump yet another distant hope of getting their chance to change the world in all the idealistic ways they yearn for. They believe that the Green New Deal, bans on ex-gay therapy, transgender surgery, single-payer health care, abolition of the police, open borders, and plush funding for teacher unions are so wondrous that anyone would want them too, if only people like Trump weren’t there to distract them with alternative views. Biden will probably deliver none of these changes to them. But for the time being, in their craving for another chance to implement their policies in full, they have seized upon the election as a do-or-die test.
The motives to rig the election are so overpowering, there is no question that have the will to commit voter fraud in the event that the people do not agree with their vision.
The liberals are stealing the election. Let nobody say there is “no evidence.” Circumstantial evidence is evidence. Numbers and absurd explanations for statistically impossible coincidences are evidence. And the history of liberal character traits is evidence. The liberals are trying to commit election fraud.