https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/02/how-djt-lost-the-white-house-chapter-6-the-aftermath/

I have seen speculation regarding the idea that Patrick Byrne might painting a picture of disarray in order to confuse the DS and their allies. I figured I'd toss in some observations on the latest installment.

Byrne opens with a mushroom cloud pic. If Q were posting this, I'd think BOOM/MOAB. But the actual essay points to no BOOM at all. He says Biden is President (with an asterisk), but he's still President, and the best we can do is organize to protect election integrity in 2022. Maybe, just maybe, we can oust the Democrats in a landslide. If we can't, we're totally screwed. But I'm not sure who we are even supposed to be voting for in 2022, since Byrne also says the Republican Party is a disgrace and no one should ever give them another dollar. Are we supposed to vote for pro-MAGA independents who will all arise independently or do we need to form a new party as well, all while the global oligarchy is criminalizing even the most obvious truths? Byrne does offer to "take one for the team" by being a test case for the criminalization of speech about election fraud, but damn if he doesn't come off as the most clueless egghead here! I guess he was good in business but has he ever studied how totalitarian regimes actually work? He says he used to be a libertarian and that doesn't surprise me, since libertarian purists can be as absurd as actual communists. It's not about right or wrong, it JUST DOESN'T WORK!

OK, I'm going off on a tangent, but I'm trying to make the point there are no BOOMS here. Byrne comes off as a decent but ever-so-slightly self-righteous smart guy who thinks that if only everyone had listened to him early enough, everything could have worked out…. And it sounds like he's going to keep playing that role, right up until he is carted off to the "reeducation" camp.

Except none of this comports with the mushroom cloud. He's NOT saying WE got nuked. He's still got "oh so clever" ideas that "just might work". But he's not saying THEY are about to get nuked either. Or is he? Could he be hinting at that?

Now for the next item. Byrne has a section where he tells us to face the hard fact that Biden is the legitimate constitutional President, even if we all know he was put into place via fraud. But I wonder if there is a hidden connection between the opening quote and the more obvious opening paragaph. Byrne quotes James Stockdale, and the quote seems to fit (although Byrne himself hardly ever claims that victory is certain). But who is James Stockdale? He was a naval officer, a fighter pilot, a POW, and a student of the Stoics. But he is most famous for being Ross Perot's vice-presidential candidate in 1992, and especially for his opening lines at the VP debate: "Who am I? Why am I here?" Double meanings and all, but the simple answer is that the Constitution demands a Vice-President in case the President ceases to be President. Now look how Byrne ends his own paragraph: Biden IS President. Byrne puts "is" in italics. On the surface, I think that is supposed to mean he IS, whether we like it or not. But maybe there is a double meaning, and Byrne is saying he IS President, AT PRESENT (but that can change at any time).

The next section in the essay is so short that I can fit it in one image. Byrne seems to be dismissing Q. That much is clear. He mentions some theories that have been proposed by anons (and some by shills I think - the only thing that gets me riled up more than talk about "the Corporation" is pictures of that woman who is not Kristi Noem - get a grip!) But Byrne says it is all delusional. And yet… notice the section heading: 'Q, “TRUST THE PLAN”, AND “THE STORM”'. Now here's the thing: I don't think Byrne has ever mentioned Q before. And those particular phrases are actual Q phrases. If Byrne was just picking up hearsay, would he actually know to distinguish actual Q-speak from frothy anon speculation? But there's more: later in the essay, Byrne says, "In these recent months I met two people for whom I can completely vouch." (And this meshes with the prior installments too.) The two people are Mike Flynn and Sidney Powell. Now think logically: if Byrne can "completely vouch" for these two, wouldn't that necessarily include vouching for them when they gave obvious endorsements of Q? I'm not going to go look for screencaps or sauce, but anons know. On the surface, I think Byrne may be "playing to character" as a really smart guy who is actually practical and a patriot, but who doesn't go in for any crazy stuff. But if you read between the lines, he may be saying "trust the plan".

>>12889530

(continuation of prior)

OK, this next thing might be a stretch, but once you dig in I think there is some meat. I mentioned before how Byrne presents his "big solution" as the focus on election integrity. I mean, damn, that is so, so wrong, just intuitively. But I have a suspicion Byrne is clueing us in on this. Now you have to know some background to catch this. Byrne tells us multiple times that he has long considered himself a libertarian who didn't initially support Trump. And if you dig further on this, you will find that he has given multiple talks at the Mises Institute - basically the intellectual HQ of libertarianism in the US. And if you dig more you find that he earned a PhD in philosophy at Stanford, and wrote it on libertarianism, using the work of Robert Nozick. First thing: that is not a joke degree. Chelsea Clinton's degree from Stanford may be a joke, but Byrne's isn't. Second thing: if you have ever studied intellectual history in the past half-century, you might know that in mainstream political philosophy (there are some outliers, but they tend to have no influence), Robert Nozick and John Rawls were contrasted as the chief political philosophers. Nozick was a libertarian, and Rawls was a "liberal". Much could be said on that, but the point is that if you were "in that game" you probably favored one and not the other. And Byrne favored Nozick. So it is odd that he opens the section on his own "big proposal" by citing Nozick's oppponent. It is almost as if Byrne is telling us he is about to lay down some nonsense… And in fact that is actually what it is, if we pay attention to the more philosophical parts. Byrne says that "election integrity" is what Rawls would call a "primary good". No, not even Rawls is that clueless. Actually, "election integrity" might serve as a paradigmatic example of a "secondary good"… something that is only good because it reliably brings other things that are inherently good. (But nothing is "inherently" good for Rawls because he is a moron, but you get the idea.) Look at the Declaration of Independence - I put the opening in an image. The "primary goods" include "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". And it says "That to secure these right, Governments are instituted among Men…". So government is a secondary good. Without government, we'd have the war of all against all and all that. So we have to suck it up - and aim to forge the best sort of government. That's actually were "election integrity" comes in. At best maybe it's a tertiary good, since it only really matters once you "deduce" that if you really need governmment, some form of representative goverment is best, and election integrity ensures that governent purporting to be representative really is. So I think Byrne is feeding us some blatant nonsense. He SAYS our goal now should be to ensure "election integrity" in 2022, but he gives multiple signs that he is knowingly saying things that he doesn't believe at all. So maybe we actually need to TRUST THE PLAN.

Now here is the final thing I will mention. As part of explaining how Biden is "legitimately" President, but with an asterisk, Byrne goes into a discussion of baseball history, recounting how Barry Bonds overtook Hank Aaron as homerun king, but it seems evident in retrospect that Bonds had "cheated" via drugs. Normies hadn't noticed this at the time, and so the record officially "counts", but because now we know how he got it, it is presented with an asterisk. Byrne makes the analogy with Biden - he wasn't "officially" caught cheating, so he is actually President… but we KNOW. What is curious though, is that Byrne makes a point of dropping in the actual homerun counts for the two. Since Hank Aaron had the "real" record of 755, I thought to check Q755. It is a drop all in caps and Q is dropping some cryptic stuff about MILITARY INTELLIGENCE. Now think this out: Byrne said that all the Trump people in DoD have left. But what about military intelligence? Is 8kun still here? Why haven't they shut it down? Seriously, WHY IS THIS BOARD STILL HERE? Who is protecting it? Maybe military intelligence? The importance of which Q emphasized in many early drops… Maybe Byrne is pointing us to the fact that MILITARY INTELLIGENCE is still in control. Now look further in that drop. I don't know what it all means, but at one point Q says: MITM (UTAH). (MITM=Military Intelligence Team) Does UTAH refer to Patrick Byrne? He's kind of a globetrotter, but he seems to be based in UTAH, and that is where his company OVERSTOCK.COM had its HQ.

Questions:

Has Byrne been overtly working with Q team (MI) for some time?

Could he actually be MI?

Could he even be Q?

I don't know, but I figured I should ask.

I almost forgot to add this… look at the date on Q755. It is this Sunday.

>>12889589

>playing the dem's own words back at them is the worst idea…

>This tit-for-tat defense worst possible idea

https://heritage.umich.edu/stories/the-prisoners-dilemma/

Alinsky works for us now.

And where can I get some of that tat (purely as a secondary good, of course)?