Patrick Byrne A concerned citizen who has been hunting the oligarchy and Deep State since 2004.
February 9, 2021 21 min read
In my humble tale thus far I attempted to stick to what I saw, what I heard, and what I knew. In this final installment, I will cover what I think. That means I will be less rigorous and more given to speculation (which I concede openly here) than in previous chapters, as I skim across a number of subjects.
PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN
“You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose —with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.” ~ James Stockdale
Our Founding Fathers designed a Constitutional process for selecting our President. I recognize that the Constitutional process ran its course and selected Joe Biden as President. So Biden is President.
Federalist Paper 68 (Hamilton) argued that one thing our process had to recommend it was that it would filter out certain types of politicians and select another (one wonders which describes Biden):
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
The drafters also anticipated that state level shenanigans might disrupt a national election:
“It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder… But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.”
By bifurcating the choice into (on the one hand) “an intermediate body of electors”, and (on the other hand) a Senate which would examine and formally accept the votes of the Electoral College, another thing was accomplished. Elections can degenerate into endless barking over corruption, but at the end of the day, for an office such as President there needs to be a mechanism to guarantee that a selection is made. The system created by our Constitution, whereby electors are chosen and sent to an Electoral College to cast their votes, then at a later point the US Senate (by recognizing and counting electoral votes) accepts that decision, accomplishes precisely that. No matter what goes on at the state level, no matter how corrupt the events, there is a US Senate to look at the facts and by accepting electoral votes, certify the decision. That bifurcation guarantees that at the end of the day, disputes about election integrity cannot swamp the overriding constraint that by some date, the victor must be established. That is the Constitutional process deciding the presidency. On January 6-7 that process ran its course. Again, it selected Joe Biden. So Biden is our president.
Thomas Sowell has pointed out that the Right normally sees fairness as an attribute of processes, while the Left sees it as an attribute of outcomes. For example, imagine a fire department sets up a system for testing and ranking applicants, and the test measures physical and mental abilities related to the job duties, then spits out a ranking of candidates. In the eyes of someone who sees fairness as an attribute of process, if the testing made no reference to race and purely to abilities related to the job duties, then whatever that ranking is, it is by definition fair. The process was fair so the result is fair. But in the eyes of the Left, if the outcome has too differential a mix of Whites and Blacks, it is unfair. That is why (says Sowell) the two sides argue and never get anywhere: they can argue about “fairnesss” until the cows come home, but underneath that one word they are arguing about two different things: one is talking about a process, one is talking about an outcome.
So we are experiencing a rare moment where Left and Right have switched sides philosophically. The Left is saying, “The process ran its course, Biden was selected in that Senate process, so he is now the legitimate President.” The some on the Right are saying, “Yes, but that outcome occurred only because of unprecedented election irregularities which created an enormous and complex election fraud, which survived only because the shot-clock expired on January 6-7, leading to a perverse outcome that is unjust and unfair and does not reflect the will of the people.” Both are holding, in a sense, just the opposite view about fairness that they normally do.
If nothing else I seek to be intellectually consistent, and I think that justice and fairness are attributes of processes. The process mandated in the Constitution (Article II Section 1) ran its course, the Senate looked at the facts (as much as they wished to, anyway), they voted, and so the outcome they generated is the outcome. Thus, Biden is indeed President. End of story.
It would be tempting to use the Left’s own playbook and continue saying, “Not my President!” (as they said for four years under Trump). By doing so one could force them to reveal their hypocrisy (as though further revelation were needed), watching them froth over a phrase they used for Trump’s entire presidency based on a theory of Russian collusion that Robert Mueller investigated and upon which he came up empty. However, I am nothing if not intellectually consistent, and as tempting as it would be to do that publicly for the next four years, it does not feel right. So with regret, I must again acknowledge that while the Constitutionally-mandated was corrupted from its inception by massive election fraud, the process ran its course, Joe Biden was the winner, and so he is, indeed, the President.
Now, having acknowledged that, I shall turn to the world of sports for proper semiotics. In 2007 Barry Bonds hit homerun 762, the final home-run of his professional career (surpassing Hank Aaron’s record of 755, which had stood since 1974). However, because for much of his professional career Barry Bonds turned out to have been using performance-enhancing steroids (BALCO labs’ “the Clear”, so named because it was not detectable in urine samples until it was), Bonds’ achievement is noted with an asterisk (often printed in red: *). In fact, in the National Baseball Hall of Fame (to which Bonds has still not been elected), Bonds’ record-breaking 756 homerun is on display with an asterisk:
Hall: Asterisk will be key to Bonds display (Daily Star, July 2008)
10 years later, Sports Illustrated wrote a story on the asterisk: Ten Years After 756, A Reminder of What Barry Bonds’ Record Really Means
Lance Armstrong won 6 Tour de France bicycle races. Yet it turned out that was also done with the assistance of performance enhancing drugs, so, as the New York Times wrote in 2012, his record will forever be marred: Armstrong, Best of His Time, Now With an Asterisk
I am going to adopt the same typographical convention for President* Biden. Referring to him as “President* Biden” accomplishes two things: it recognizes that he did, in fact, become President through the Constitutionally-mandated process; it also recognizes that irregularities (such as have been described in this story) marred that achievement. So Biden is indeed President*, in the same way that Barry Bonds owns the home-run record with 762*, and Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France 6* times.
Q, “TRUST THE PLAN”, AND “THE STORM”
I still hear from otherwise sane-sounding people, and read in social media, assertions that Trump is really still in charge, or the military is in charge, or that there is a plan, that this has all been a big 4-dimensional chess trap, and on March 4 Trump is going to reemerge as President, of the Republic not the Corporation (or some such)…. It is time someone tells all such folks: that is all delusional. Trust me, there is no such plan. Trump’s people in the Defense Department have all left. There is no network of secret agents ready to spring the trap and restore Donald Trump to the White House on March 4. It is delusional to think otherwise. The brutal fact of our current reality is that (as a result of a process riddled with election fraud), we have a President* Biden. If enough of it could have been unwound by the middle of December, state legislators would have had something to think about in choosing their electors. But the genius of the scheme is that after the election, it simply had to rope-a-dope for 8 weeks, and the grinding of constitutional gears would do the rest of the work for them.
The Senate selected. Joe Biden became our President*. Yes, that really happened. Do not live in a delusion by believing some trap is going to spring, a storm is on its way, and so forth.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
As I indicated in “How DJT Lost the White House, Chapter 4: The Christmas Doldrums (December 23- noon January 6)”, the Republican Party is a disgrace. Through this process I saw enough of them that I came to understand who they are. Other than a small number of strong players, it is mostly socialites and dilettantes, fat-cats and grifters (e.g., raising $300 million to help expose election fraud, then provide no apparent help: someone should look into where that $300 million went).
I advise the Reader: Never give a dollar to the Republican Party again.
In these recent months I met two people for whom I can completely vouch. Two people of whom I can say, “These two people are fully and entirely about helping the USA, and are not in it one iota for themselves.” Those two people are Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn. They have started an excellent organization, Defending the Republic, and they mean business. Give them whatever donations you would otherwise send the Republican Party. They will be splitting the money into two different endeavors: one is organized to fight election fraud, the other will be focused on finding the right candidates to back and fund. If you want a one-stop shop, the one place you can give money to help the pro-freedom side, forget about the Republican Party, and remember Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn, and DefendingtheRepublic.org.
AMERICA’S MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI
I roasted Rudy harder than I might have. I wish to repeat again that I have been a long-term admirer of Rudy Giuliani. I always thought he was a great American. But at age 76 he was not the right man to manage an enormously complex litigation involving matters cyber, and certainly not while putting a lot of work into a daily podcast and tossing back triple-scotches like they’re going out of style. Rudy should have had better judgment than to try. I also believe he is driven by things like “jealousy over who gets airtime,” and not a guy used to working with or seeing females as equals.
In short, he’s Grandpa. I love Grandpa. But I don’t think the fate of the free world should have hung on his shoulders. That was an unforced error on the part of President Trump. As much as I kick myself with should-haves and would-haves, at the end of the day I think that, given this one error, no victory was possible. Numerous people who worked with this team independently came to wonder who among its top members were working for the opposition: that is how weak it seemed. There were fine people on Rudy’s team lower down, but it was so horrible at the top that this one decision alone likely made victory impossible under any circumstances.
DONALD J. TRUMP
“The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”
– Isiah Berlin
The astute reader will notice my ambivalence regarding President Trump. I have included flattering details as well as unflattering ones. I did so because I really did not intend this to be a polemic. I felt I owed it to our country to relate precisely what happened in those fateful days. I have.
What may I say about Donald Trump? From my hours with him I can tell you he is a smart man, smarter than I expected. He is more soft-spoken and gracious than I had anticipated as well. He is not the monster the Mainstream Media wishes you to believe.
I also think Trump has a taste for chaos (someone pointed this out to me as a trait of those who grew up around alcoholism). One of my mentors taught me that the first task in any leadership situation is to determine, “What’s the mission and who is in charge?” One needs clear chains of command to focus an organization. President Trump’s leadership style (which is to throw a problem against the wall and have a crowd swarm in to fix it) seems more appropriate to me to running a branding and marketing company, than it is to someone running an operation (such as the USG) with millions of employees.
Significantly, I think Donald Trump is a 74 year old fellow who has lost a number of friends over the years, and like all men in that position, he perhaps clings to his remaining ones too closely. I was floating around inside his operation from the wheels up, and I saw what I saw: Rudy was not capable of managing anything like the effort this would have taken to defeat The Deep Rig. Thinking otherwise was an absurdity. I am not even sure Rudy wanted to. Trump clung to Rud, coming as he was from a place of loyalty, even after Rudy’s disastrous hair-dye-meltdown press conference, and telling me twice he would not entertain a solution that did not have Rudy at the helm. Donald Trump paid for his loyalty.
Here is another thing to know about President Trump: I look over all the evidence, his refusal to take the 3-foot putt, and it occurs to me that at some level Trump may have wanted to leave. Maybe it was his age, maybe it was threats to his family, but it is entirely possible that by the time I met him in December he was looking forward to moving on and golfing (as he slyly hinted to me when we met). He is 74, a tad heavier than he should be, statistically probably has 5-10 years to live, and may well not really have wanted to spend most of them doing what he did the last four.
If that is indeed the case… more power to him. It would have been better, though, for him to concede, and not to call millions of people to spend their savings to come defend him. I am not entirely certain he thinks in those terms, howver.
I have indicated a lot of ambivalence about Donald Trump. But for the first time I have a clear understanding of the meaning of Donald J. Trump in our history. It is not about his mannerism, his hair, his speaking style, his management style…. What Donald Trump did is he figured out one big thing:
The people of our country are suffering because elites sold them out. The people can look at what has happened over the last 30 – 40 years, and know they have been sold out. They correctly understand that when they look at Trump they are not looking at an “elite” but one who wants to stand up (however coarsely) against the elites on their behalf. That is his source of appeal, and that is what causes so many to look the other way on his personal foibles.
The problem with that worldview is that Trump’s personal foibles leak into his management. Even his admirers within the administration told me that the chaos I was experiencing was par for the course for four years. Being President is not a branding exercise, and the management style one might take in approaching a branding exercise is not right for trying to run an administration. President Trump fancies himself intuitive, not needing to do heavy homework (of, saying, reading his full PDB). In this case, that resulted in him not understanding his full powers or the varieties of courses of action that were available to him. He left the details in the hands of personnel, but his personnel choices were terrible.
Until he was elected President, Donald Trump had never spent one night in DC. Based on all tht I observed, my guess is that the day Donald Trump fired Mike Flynn, his goose was cooked. For the next four years Trump got managed, he got handled, by the bureaucracy. It is indeed a wonder Trump got done what he did. But I am confident that had Mike Flynn been there history would have been completely different.
WHERE’S THE PROOF?
The same side maintaining there was no significant election fraud has since November 4 fought tooth-and-nail against allowing any real scrutiny of the systems to take place.
For example, back in November, in Nevada, a court gave some cyber-ninjas of my acquaintance an order allowing an “audit” of election machines in that county. That audit was thwarted by election officials who said, “It does not say ‘digital audit’, it does not say ‘forensic audit’,” and on that basis gave minimal compliance. They revealed some certifications but gave no access to inspect the machines. Similarly, in Arizona, currently, the Maricopa Board of Elections is refusing to honor a subpoena from the State Senate. And so on across the country: despire the most suspect election in American history unfolding before our eyes, there has to this day been almost 0 actual inspection of th systems and ballots (and what inspection has occurred, has been grossly exaggerated: e.g., Georgia). While these machines were sold to the states as offering transparency, in practice there has been overwhelming digging in of heels in against transparency since the day after the election, and every scrap of information we have obtained was fought for inch by inch.
That is how they ran out the shot-clock on January 6.
By federal law, all the election materials used in the 2020 election must be preserved for 22 months. There are efforts alive to keep investigations running, court cases and Senate hearings and such. The opposition has achieved its primary objective: it made it impossible to audit any of those materials meaningfully before the Senate made its choice on January 6-7. Now it continues the fight against transparency, knowing that revelations that might come from a full audit would shape Americans’ beliefs about the need to reform our election systems.
That’s odd, because one would think that if they actually believed their assertions of there being no fraud, they would welcome scrutiny to establish that election fraud had not dominated the election.
WHY DOES EVERYTHING SEEM SURREAL? THE WEAK HYPOTHESIS
You are living through a psyop (a psychological operation) being executed with military precision.
What scared both Flynn and me (and what drove us both forward whenever we asked each other, “What the hell are we doing here?”), was this possibility. It sounds far-fetched to most people, but we considered it an obvious possibility: what America has experienced for the last year has been a psyop, just like ones we have used to destabilize and impose regime change on other countries.
The stages of a regime-changing psyop are:
It does not take much imagination to fit the events of the last year to this paradigm.
How reasonable is that? How reasonable is it to suspect that Covid-19 has been used in a plan to hijack the USA? I am not referring to the origins of Covid-19, or asserting that it was deliberately released as part of such a plan. But once released, were there those who sought to make hay out of it? Is it possible to imagine that some people wanted the pandemic to be worse than it had to be? Let us look at some things that are now known to be true, but which caused mini-hysterias when they first arose in the public discourse a year ago.
In 1983 a couple dozen other college students and I traveled to Asia for the first time to attend a semester in Beijing. We were all instructed to take Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically while there, increasing the dose at the onset of malarial symptoms. I stayed a year, then went and lived in the north of Thailand for five months, where in dusty one-shop villages I would invariably see on a shelf in that shop: one bottle containing aspirin, one bottle containing hydroxychloroquine, both sold by the pill for about 5 cents. When one had malarial symptoms, one bought a handful of hydroxychloroquine pills and treated oneself, just as if one had a tooth-ache one bought a handful of aspirin and treated oneself. Hydroxychloroquine was sold to kids with no more thought than one would give selling a few pills of aspirin to a 10 year old with a tooth-ache. Hydroxychloroquine had been around for decades back then: I vaguely remember some statistic like, “Of people who take it daily for 10 years, 2% will develop heart arrhythmias.” But other than that, and an understanding that when starting to take it one might experience a bit of dizziness, it was thought of as benign.
Thus it was with some surprise that early in this pandemic, when doctors started reporting results with early treatment of Covid-19 using hydroxychloroquine, the Mainstream Media went apoplectic. Talking heads on Mainstream Media discussed whether or not in extremis they would take hydroxychloroquine, as though they were discussing taking a radical new form of chemotherapy in the event they had cancer. Governors got into the act, and created special orders making it impossible for doctors to provide HCQ for off-label use to their Covid-19 patients (a rare moment for the government to rupture the privacy within such decisions are normally made). It reached such a fervor that Jim Acosta (CNN) attacked the president for, in a gathering of Covid-19 survivors, including some who had survived by way of Hydrochloriquine.https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZaymI8qA2y8?enablejsapi=1&autoplay=0&cc_load_policy=0&iv_load_policy=1&loop=0&modestbranding=0&fs=1&playsinline=0&controls=1&color=red&cc_lang_pref=&rel=1&autohide=2&theme=dark&If video does not play, click; https://youtu.be/ZaymI8qA2y8
This hysteria continued over the course of summer 2020, costing countless lives by thwarting the ability of doctors to use it to snuff out the pandemic early on. In time, the hostility to HCQ abated, as it was discovered that the study upon which the WHO had made its original decision, had used fake data: BUSTED: W.H.O. And Global Governments Used Fake Data From A Suspicious Company, That Employs A Sci-Fi Writer And Adult-Content Model, To Discredit And Stop Hydroxychloroquine Studies (June 2020).
The HCQ Opinion War continued throughout Summer 2020.
By September 2020, antagonism to HCQ had come to seem foolish not just in the alternative press, but to non-obsessed mass media: cf. “The jury is in on Hydroxychloroquine – ‘it saves lives’: Rowan Dean “.
Now the point is no longer in serious dispute: see “HCQ is effective for COVID-19 when used early: real-time meta analysis of 201 studies”
This drug went through the same process of demonization by the Mainstream Media. Eventually, in the face of enough data regarding its efficacy having reached the public, the NIH softened its stance against Ivermectin. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons put out a statement welcoming that change: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Applauds NIH Revised Stance on Ivermectin for COVID-19:
“The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons [AAPS] notes that there are now 49 ivermectin studies summarized onc19study.com, 100 percent of which show favorable results” (from the report).
From Australia to South Africa, doctors are reporting rapid improvements in Covid-19 patients from this super-cheap and readily available drug. Ivermectin was another drug from which our betters protected us for months of this pandemic (instead of using these safe and dirt-cheap drugs to snuff out the pandemic early).
The Left has pushed for the most extreme lockdowns, while President Trump pushed for something more limited. Sweden, operating from a perspective that was science-based (rather than “hysteria-based” or “politically-based”), instituted a more limited lockdown than anything contemplated in the USA. Their model was to quarantine the vulnerable, yet have the rest of society continue with their lives while practisicing modest social distancing, thus pursuing herd immunity and the least disruption to the economy and civil liberties of the citizens. In other words, the Swedish approach was significantly more Trump than Trump (and the precise opposite of the app-roach demanded by the Left in America).
Sweden’s strategy turned out to be the best. The second wave they experienced was not larger than the first, Sweden avoided turning into a police state, and now Covid-19 deaths have tapered to 0 (all data and graphs from World Health Organization website):
Covid-19 Deaths in Sweden
Meanwhile, the rest of Europe and the industrialized world is experiencing a second wave more intense than the first, and deaths have most certainly not tapered to 0. For example, here are Covid-19 deaths in lockdown-mad Germany, France, and the UK over the last year:
Covid-19 Deaths in Germany
Covid-19 Deaths in France:
Covid-19 Deaths in The United Kingdom
Please note the scale dissimilarities on the right: while Sweden has tapered to 0 deaths, Germany, France, and the UK are still experiencing daily deaths in the many hundreds and even over 1,000.
THE START OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
On February 2, 2021, PBS ran a 90 minute documentary (“China’s Covid Secrets”), maintaining that the Covid-19 pandemic began in a Chinese lab accident and the CCP engaged in a cover-up. One year ago, nothing enraged the mass media more than people who espoused any form of this “conspiracy theory”. Yet now, like with Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, the people who were thought whacky a year ago, turn out to have been right.
SUMMARY ON COVID-19
The discourse around this pandemic has been distorted by people seeking to weaponize it politically. As a result, the pandemic inflected more harm on the United States than it had to. The Swedish, science-based approach, would have left us far better off as a country, with less harm to our economy and our civil liberties, than the path we took. Coupled with the use of two cheap, safe drugs that have been in use for decades, this entire pandemic might have been snuffed out in its infancy.
Yet one group consistently fought any such measured discourse, insisting instead on a reaction one marked by unscientific hysteria. Among the most extreme lock-down proponents in the USA have been Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot, and New York City’s Mayor Bill De Blasio. As soon as Biden’s inauguration was confirmed, some of the proponents of lock-down switched to a less hysterical position. In Chicago, Mayor Lightfoot, one of the most extreme proponents in the country of lock-down,recently decided that a much less stringent approach would be best: “Lightfoot Says Restaurants Should Reopen As Quickly As Possible “ (Patch, January 14, 2021). A similar pattern may be unfolding in New York City. If it is hard to imagine any politician being so cynical as to push for a lock-down that has destroyed millions of lives and tens of thousands of small businesses (60% of which will not reopen), simply in order to achieve political advantage…. then you don’t understand the Left.
Above I asked regarding Covid-19: “…once released, were there those who sought to make hay out of it? Is it possible to imagine that some people wanted the pandemic to be worse than it had to be?” Make your own call.
We now return to the structure of the psyop I hypothesize may exist:
Regarding Step #2 (Disorientation – Antifa & BLM), I saw it myself in DC this fall. I was walking in front of the J. Edgar Hoover Building (HQ to the FBI), when goons came roaring up on motorcycles and ATVs and took over the street, stopping traffic. They did wheelies and donuts for several minutes. Then they roared off. Directly in front of the FBI building: the uniformed guards at the FBI stood and watched. I understood it quite clearly to be a message: “This is not the FBI you thought it was, this is not the SUA you thought it was.” I realized that is what had been broadcast since June.
Regarding Step #3 (“Crisis – election counting stopped in 6 cities in 6 swing states, then a surprise happened”): I would call this election a crisis indeed, but I believe I have already covered this point thoroughly.
Regarding Step #4 (“Normalization – the media gaslighting anyone who sees anything odd about the election”). In September, just four months ago, the possibility of a massive election fraud occurring in the USA was (as I demonstrated in Chapter 1) perhaps the proposition that enjoyed more support across the political spectrum than any other one could name. Now the possibility has become inexpressible, even unthinkable, as far as our Mainstream Media is concerned. Even Right-of-Center Newsmax recently saw a host walk off its show, rather than participate in a conversation where the possibility was discussed.
So why do things seem surreal? Perhaps because you are living through a psyop to take over our country, and reality as you know it is being engineered. That’s the weak hypothesis.
WHY DOES EVERYTHING SEEM SURREAL? THE STRONG HYPOTHESIS
If the Weak Hypothesis is correct and we are living through a psyop, who is behind the psyop? China is behind the psyop.
I am not the proverbial Old China Hand, but decades ago I was once a Young China Hand. Since the Chinese publication in 1998 of: Unrestricted Warfare: Two Air Force Senior Colonels on Scenarios for War and the Operational Art in an Era of Globalization, by Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗), it has been understood that hard-line elements within the Chinese National Security community have been envisioning and positioning themselves for war with the USA. The “unrestricted” part of “unrestricted warfare” is the part that avoids direct military confrontation, and seeks instead to conquer through non-kinetic means.
In 2015, a lifelong China-dove (i.e., advocate of helping China stand up and prosper) named Michael Pillsbury wrote a book (The 100 Year Marathon) where he reversed course. He had been wrong all his professional life, he said, as he now understood that China had embarked on a 1949-2049 plan to turn the USA into a vassal state. In this book, he discussed a phrase circulating in Chinese national security literature: the “Assassin’s Mace” it had in the works for the USA. The reference, Pillsbury knew, was to an old Chinese story from the Warring States period, and refers to, in essence, a sucker punch one-punch knockout.
Nothing would be more of an Assassin’s Mace than a scheme to take out the USA with a rigged election that could not be unscrambled through our court system by January 6, thus making the Constitutional gears to affirm what had been presented as a fait accompli.
Yet I am raising this not merely as a theoretical possibility. We discovered ample evidence of Chinese involvement in these election shenanigans. Go through the narrative that proceeds this, and note the mentions. Their money shows up in the firms supplying the election equipment in widest use; their IPs show up tickling our election equipment in countless places; receipts from their print shops show up on stacks of ballots in our election operations… DNI Ratcliffe belatedly delivered on January 7 his opinion: he sees more of the intelligence than anyone in government, and his conclusion was that the Chinese had meddled in the election.
If the Strong Hypothesis is correct and this is all a Chinese psyop, there is a way you will be able to be sure. Authoritarian Chinese measures will be imposed on the US population (under the guise of stopping something vague like, “extremism”). President* Joe Biden will fill his administration with China-doves, and he will reverse an Executive Order of Trump’s to allow the Chinese to resume building components of our electoral grid. Because of the political discourse being constrained by Big Tech and authoritarian measures, within 10 years there will be prison camps in America built next to hospitals for the purpose of organ-harvesting from dissidents. By that time, Xi Jinping will have a button on his desk: one day he will hit it, the US electrical grid will shut down, and over the course of one year the United States will turn into a farm (which China’s 1.6 billion people will appreciate).
Those will be your signs that the Strong Hypothesis was correct.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE COMING(?) POLICE STATE
I know that some of the beliefs I have espoused here are not in synch with the times. Regarding my ability to maintain and publicly defend these beliefs, the First Amendment seems particularly on-point:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If our new Congress passes any bill criminalizing or penalizing people for challenging the integrity of the 2020 election, not only would it violate the First Amendment, but it would violate every principle on which this free country was founded and it would criminalize the conduct of every member of the “resist” movement and war that was waged on President Trump.
So I say to the United States Department of Justice: you are going to need a test case. Choose me. I am not saying that in a James Cagney, “Come and get me, Coppers!” kind of way. I mean it respectfully but sincerely. If our rulers wish to claim that in America today, maintaining and expressing political beliefs such as mine ist jetzt völlig verboten, I’d really like to know. So I invite the DOJ to prosecute me for this three-part statement:
I’ll be your huckleberry.
Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!