In my humble tale thus far, I sought to stick to what I saw, what I heard, and what I knew. In this final chapter I will cover what I think. That means I will be less rigorous and more given to speculation (which I openly concede 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 for others (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 state level corruption 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 to examine and formally accept the votes of the Electoral College, another thing was accomplished. Elections may degenerate into debate about 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 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 disputes about election integrity cannot swamp the overriding constraint that by some date, a victor must be established. This Constitutional process decides the presidency. On January 6-7 that process ran its course, and 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 measured abilities related to the job duties, then whatever that ranking is, it is by definition fair. The process was fair so the outcome 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.” Others are saying, “Yes, but that outcome occurred only because of unprecedented election irregularities which created an enormous and complex election fraud, which survived because the shot-clock expired on January 6-7, leading to a perverse outcome that is 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 against it by continuing to maintain, “Not my President!” (as the Left said for four years under Trump). By doing so one could force them to reveal their hypocrisy (as if 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 feels churlish. So with regret, I must acknowledge that while the Constitutionally-mandated process was corrupted from its inception by election fraud, the process ran its course, Joe Biden was the winner, and so he is, indeed, the President.
Having acknowledged that, I turn to the world of sports for 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 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 the National Baseball Hall of Fame (to which Bonds has still not been elected), Bonds’ record-breaking 756th homer is displayed 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 he did so 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 Constitutional 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 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 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 those who designed this scheme was that after the election, they 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 putting 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 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 complex litigation involving matters cyber, and certainly not while putting a lot of work into a daily podcast and other pastimes. 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 hang 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 Rudy’s senior 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 one decision alone may have made victory impossible under any circumstances. And Rudy should have had better judgment than to take it on.
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 else 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 marketing company, than it is to someone running an operation 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 it would have taken to defeat The Deep Rig. Thinking otherwise was an absurdity. I am not even sure Rudy wanted to. Trump clung to Rudy from a place of loyalty, even after Rudy’s disastrous hair-dye-meltdown press conference, 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. He did go to DC and, in one term, leave a mark deeper than most two term presidents. And he did that while having to fight the Esablishment for every inch.
If that is how he really felt, however, it would have been better 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, however.
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.
I agree with this worldview. I formed DeepCapture 13 years ago to document a war I would be waging against precisely the same observation. the USA has become an oligarchy, and the oligarchy has two wings: Wall Street and the Deep State. We are a republic grown corrupt, and the nation is not being run for the benefit of the people. Check. Trump’s movement is inspired by the same reaction to the world that inspired DeepCapture. Trump gets it. The problem 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 firm is not right for running an administration. President Trump is intuitive, and does not do heavy homework (e.g. reading his full PDB). In this case, that resulted in him not understanding his full powers or the courses of action that were available to him.
He left the details to personnel, but his personnel choices were terrible.
Until he was elected President, Donald Trump had never spent one night in DC. Based on all that 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, in November, a Nevada court gave some cyber-ninjas of my acquaintance an order allowing an “audit” of election machines in that county. When they showed up to look at the machines, the 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 certificates 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: despite the most suspect election in American history unfolding before our eyes, there has to this day been almost 0 actual inspection of the systems and ballots, and what inspection has occurred, has been exaggerated (e.g., Georgia). While these machines were sold to election boards as offering transparency, in practice there has been overwhelming digging-in-of-heels 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 to keep investigations running, court cases and Senate hearings and such. I believe that one breakthrough anywhere, will embolden State legislatures to get more aggressive on demanding their own local independent investigation. Still, the opposition has achieved its primary objective: it made it impossible to audit any of the materials meaningfully before the Senate made its decision on January 6-7. Now it continues the fight against transparency, knowing that revelations that would 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 in key spots.
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 (per what’s known as “the Bezmenov Model“) are:
- Demoralization of the country;
It takes little imagination to fit to this paradigm the events of the last year:
- Demoralization of the country – Covid-19;
- Disorientation – Antifa & BLM;
- Crisis–election counting stops in 6 cities in 6 swing states, then a surprise;
- Normalization – the media gaslights anyone who sees anything odd here.
Regarding Step #1 (“Demoralization– Covid-19): how reasonable is it to suspect that Covid-19 may have 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 in the open, does it seem like there were some who sought to take advantage of it? Might it be possible that some wanted the pandemic to be worse than it needed to be?
Let us look at some things that are now known to be true, but which caused mini-hysterics when they first arose in the public discourse a year ago.
In 1983 a couple dozen other college students and I traveled to Asia 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. 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 arrhythmia.” But other than that warning, and one that slight dizziness might occur when one first took it, HCQ was described to us as being quite benign.
I stayed a year in China, then went and lived in the north of Thailand for five months. In dusty one-shop villages I would see on store shelves one bottle containing aspirin, one bottle containing hydroxychloroquine, both sold by the pill for 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.
Thus when last Spring doctors started reporting favorable results with early treatment of Covid-19 using hydroxychloroquine, it was with some surprise that I saw the Mainstream Media go apoplectic about this suddenly-dangerous HCQ. 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 in on the act, creating special orders making it impossible for doctors to provide HCQ for off-label use to their Covid-19 patients (a rare moment that the government ruptured the doctor-patient privacy within such decisions are normally made).
It reached such a fervor that Jim Acosta (CNN) attacked the president for including in a White House gathering of Covid-19 survivors, some who had survived by way of HCQ, as though that put them beyond the pale.
In time, some hostility to HCQ abated when it was learned that the study upon which WHO had made its 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).
Yet the HCQ hysteria continued to simmer over the course of summer 2020.
- The Israeli newspaper Arutz Sheva noted: “Media hostility to hydroxychloroquine fuels hysteria about supposed dangers” (July 9, 2020).
- “Hydroxy is being discounted TOO SOON, say scientists who believe the malaria drug could save thousands of lives by preventing COVID-19 (August 2020).
- “Michigan Hospital Tries To Treat Patients with Hydroxychloroquine; FDA Refuses To Allow It” (Western Journal, August 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”
The hysteria over HCQ cost countless lives, and thwarted the ability of doctors to use HCQ to snuff out the pandemic early on.
Since 1981 Ivermectin has been used as a frontline treatment for parasites (lice, scabies, rimgworm etc.) around the world. In fact, it is included in the World Health Organization’s List of 40 Essential Medicines (2019).
Yet this benign and standard-issue drug went through the same process of demonization by the Mainstream Media as did HCQ. 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:
“The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons [AAPS] notes that there are now 49 ivermectin studies summarized on c19study.com, 100 percent of which show favorable results” (from the report).Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Applauds NIH Revised Stance on Ivermectin for COVID-19:
Yet Ivermectin was another drug from which our betters protected us for months of this pandemic, rather than using these safe and dirt-cheap drugs to address early onset of symptoms (which would have done more to “flatten the curve” than all the press conferences we saw).
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 with 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 lockdown-mad approach demanded by most of the rest of Europe and the Left in America).
Sweden’s strategy turned out to be wisest. 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, most 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
The people who were maintaining positions thought whacky a year ago, have turned out to be right about other things besides Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. For example, a year ago no “conspiracy thory” was more reviled than one that held this disease started in a government laboratory in Wuhan.
Yet by the beginning of 2021, we were seeing articles such as: Corrupt Corporate Media Finally Admits Coronavirus Probably Came From A Communist Chinese Lab (The Federalist, January 5, 2021), citing an article appearing in mainstream New York Magazine: “The Lab-Leak Hypothesis” (New York Magazine, January 4, 2021).
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.
On Febuary 11, 2021, the Director-General of World Health organization did a U-turn on his previous dismissal of the possibility of Covid-19 originating in a Chinese lab, saying:
“Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded. I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study.”WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the Member States briefing on COVID-19 – 11 February 2021
One year ago, nothing enraged the mass media more than people who espoused any form of this “conspiracy theory”. Now PBS and New York Magazine (both Establishment) are reporting it as true and WHO has retracted its previous assertion it was untrue.
Which raises a question: Why at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic was the Establishment so intent on suppressing possibilities such as HCQ, Ivermectin, and the possible origins of Covid in a Chines government lab? It sure seems they went to extraordinary lengths to denormalize these ideas (which have since proven true). Does that seem odd?
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 marked by unscientific hysteria and, arguably, political calculation. As soon as Biden’s inauguration was confirmed, some proponents of lock-down switched to a less hysterical position essentially immediately. For example, 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. In Chicago, Mayor Lightfoot 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 is 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 businesses (60% of which will not reopen), simply in order to achieve political advantage…. then you don’t understand the Goon-Left.
Above I asked regarding Covid-19:
“But once in the open, does it seem like there those who have sought to take advantage of it? Might it be possible that are those who wanted the pandemic to be worse than it needed to be?
Make your own call.
We now return to the Bezmenov psyop I hypothesize may exist:
- Demoralization of the country – Covid-19;
- Disorientation – Antifa & BLM;
- Crisis–election counting stops in 6 cities in 6 swing states, then a surprise;
- Normalization – the media gaslighs anyone who sees anything odd here.
Regarding Step #2 (Disorientation – Antifa & BLM): One day this fall I was walking in front of the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI-HQ), 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. Again, this was on the street in front of putatively the premier law enforcement agency in the world. The guards at the FBI building stood and watched. I understood the message: “This is not the FBI you thought it was, this is not the USA you thought it was.” That, in fact, has been the subtext of the Big Broadcast since June, 2020.
Regarding Step #3 (“Crisis – election counting stops in 6 cities in 6 swing states, then a surprise”): I would call this election a crisis indeed, but I believe I have already covered this point thoroughly.
Regarding Step #4 (“Normalization – the media gaslights anyone who sees anything odd here”). In September, just four months ago, the possibility of a massive election fraud occurring in the USA was (as I demonstrated in the introduction) a proposition that enjoyed more support across the political spectrum than any other one could find. 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? Consider the possibility that China is behind the psyop.
I am not the proverbial Old China Hand, but decades ago I was once a Young China Hand. What follows is speculative but worth considering.
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, Michael Pillsbury, a lifelong China-dove (i.e., advocate of helping China modernize and prosper) 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 planned 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.
Is what we are experiencing right now China’s “Assassin’s Mace”? 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 allowing the Constitutional forces to go to work and let turn to cement what had been presented as a fait accompli.
I am raising this not merely as a theoretical possibility. My colleagues and I 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 online; 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 one way you will be able to be able to tell. Authoritarian 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 critical infrastructure (e.g., electrical infrastructure). 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 90% of Americans will die off and the USA will turn into a farm (for which China’s 1.6 billion people will be grateful).
Those will be your warning signs that the Strong Hypothesis was correct.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
I will devote a full essay to this shortly, but I would be remiss if I did not remind citizens that we have a Supreme Court. The Supreme Court let us down once, in 1936-1937, when they succumbed to FDR’s threats to pack the Court. The result of their succumbing were allowing FDR’s propgrams to punch hole punched in the Constitution (e.g., Wickard v. Filburn), and through those holes the federal government grew to three times the size it should have been (and bankrupted the nation in the process).
The Supreme Court has their chance to make up for that one, by riding tall in the saddle, cleaning up this industrial election fraud and all future election fraud, and thus saving the republic.
They can do it on one principal: stopping voter suppression. Remember, every fake ballot that gets counted nullifies the vote of one actual voter, just as surely as a poll tax (or other forms of voter suppression) would. If the Supreme Court has courage, they will recognize that the moves Democrats made in 2020 to loosen everything that bringa integrity to an election, were part of what was, in essence, a massive voter suppression scheme (because industrial-sized election fraud creates massive voter suppression).
This is what voter suppression looked like in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963:
This is what it looks like now:
The signs are that in six key states there were collectively millions of acts of voter suppression in the 2020 election, by any of numerous methods.
Two generations ago we choose not to live in a world where this occurs:
But in the 2020 election it happened millions of times. Every illegitimate vote in the system is one act of voter suppression against some citizen somewhere who cast an opposing ballot. Thus, in the 2020 election, there were (effectively) several million of these (without the individuals whose votes were suppressed even knowing it):
I believe the US Supreme Court should, at earliest opportunity, save the republic by recognizing tht election fraud is mass voter suppression, and they should create the kind of blanket standards they imposed on states starting in the 1960’s. Standards such as: voter rolls must be kept clean; voters have to identify themselves; ballot-harvesting is an invitation to Goon-ism; reconsider using any electronic equipment (Dominion voting equipment is not used in Canada, though the firm is HQed in Toronto); and recognize (with almost all other countries) that mail-in voting is too given to fraud to be used in an election except as a special accommodation. Take the word of a bipartisan commision led by Jimmy Carter and James Baker:
‘Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.
The United States Supreme Court is faced with a novel situation. I believe I have presented enough evidence in this work to raise the possibility in the mind of any sane person, that a well-thought out and crisply executed organization hijacked our national election in 2020, by hijacking 6 key swing states, by hijacking the anchor city in each of those states, via election fraud that began with simultaneous and unprecedented shutting down of vote-counting, and continuing through countless forms that have been documented in videos and affidavits and with what forensics have been allowed.
That took a lot of chutzpah. And I think that if there were ever a time that the Supreme Court should act with chutpah, this would be it. All our other institutions have failed us, and this is as serious a moment as the 1960’s Civil Rights crisis, perhaps the Dred Scott decision (another one they flubbed, thus causing Civil War I). If they give a hall pass to the behavior and activities in Election 2020 that have already been extensively documented, it will bring about the end of the republic. Not just from the emboldened current administration, but from the acts of politicians brought to power by future Rigs, great and small, and how that defeats the very concept of consent of the governed that is central to our tradition.
The Supreme Court might show some chutzpah worthy of the moment, and solve this problem once and for all by recognizing that, thanks to the magic of modern election systems and methods and rules, we are back to is a world where this just happened to millions of people:
So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Supreme Court (which on Friday, February 19 will have a conference on Sydney’s Michigan case, a case which is chock-full of evidence), will do something as meaningful as they did in the 1960’s era, when voter suppression and other matters of egregious civil rights violation came before them.
WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? THREE SUGGESTIONS
We can pull this out if everyone will follow three pieces of advice.
- The first rule in all situations (from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy):
2. Remain non-violent. Is there anyone who does not see how much the events of January 6 hurt our cause? There was a huge number of Americans on the side of wanting to get to the bottom of election fraud, until the Capitol was stormed. It was a tremendous setback to our pro-freedom side. That may, in fact, be why it was engineered (and to some degree, it was engineered). At this point, the Goon’s in power want you to go violent, so as to justify them unleashing the FBI and CIA and DHS on you with a vengeance. Don’t do it. Remember the audience: middle America, who knows something goofy is going on, but will not side with the team that is bringing violence. so remain non-violent. It is better ethically, and it is better tactically.
To understand why it is better ethically, please see this post:
To understand why it is better tactically, please see this post:
3. Focus your political attention, ire, and efforts on election integrity. No matter what else you want, you want this first and more.
A philosopher named John Rawls referred to “primary goods” as those goods you want no matter what else you want in life. When it comes to our political life, there is one good you must want beyond all others, and that is election integrity. No matter how strongly you feel about education policy, or abortion, or medical care, or gun rights, or or or… No matter what your interest in politics, you need to care about election integrity.
That means: get involved with your local elections board. Run for it if you can. Otherwise, volunteer to work in precincts. Do the 2 days of training. By November 2022 the pro-freedom among us (libertarians and republicans) have to be election mavens. We have to be working in the precincts and making sure the Rig cannot be repeated. You have 20 months to prepare: all your political ambition should be focused on this point. There is no point worry about any other political matter, without worrying about “election integrity” first and more.
2022 will be our last shot. If there is election integrity, I believe the Goons will lose the House and Senate in a landslide, because Americans see their true colors. On the other hand, if we do not restore election integrity by then, then next election will also be rigged, and we will have tipped our way into a fascist, authoritarian dystopian version of America, run by Goons.
And with the backing of China, the tech titans, and America’s Goon-Left, you can be confident that Government of the Goons, by the Goons, and for the Goons shall not perish from this Earth. So no matter what you care about in politics, for the next 20 months turn that care into intense focus on election operations in your county and state (swing states are especially important). These processes are open to the public: volunteer, get inside them, figure out what has to happen to make them run with integrity, and fight for that. That’s how we win.
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 publicly espouse and 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 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 say that not in a James Cagney “Come and get me, Coppers!” disrespectful kind of way. I mean it respectfully but sincerely. If our rulers wish to claim that in America, 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 four-part statement:
- I acknowledge that Joe Biden proceeded successfully through the Article II Section 1 Constitutionally-mandated process that selects a president. He thus is, indeed, President. I also believe substantial irregularities affected the election process, and that those irregularities should be studied, discussed, and prosecuted in order to restore election integrity to our nation in time for the 2022 election. Because of these irregularities I refer to him as, “President* Biden”.
- In addition, to the degree that Biden tries to loosen rules governing future elections, or changes immigration policy so as to dramatically shift voter composition in the USA, I will claim it confirms my Weak Hypothesis: industrial-level election fraud rigged the election for Biden, the Left knows it, and wanting the Rig to be locked in for future elections, they seek to change the rules and the electorate now.
- In addition, behind some election irregularities I see the hand of China. Therefore, when President* Biden accommodates China through his appointments and Executive Orders, I take it as confirming my Strong Hypothesis: we are experiencing a Chinese psyop to take over the United States without firing a shot.
- Lastly, I want those who join me in doubting election 2020 to work non-violently to pursue our investigations, promote our point of view, and get involved with local election activities across the country, with an eye to restoring election integrity in time for the elections of November, 2022. Every fake vote allowed into the system is an act of voter suppression against one legitimate vote from a citizen somewhere.
If it becomes illegal to espouse that worldview, I’ll be your huckleberry.