WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

541

You are all mongoloid tier. Learn from your enemy and dialectic like the jew.

Perceived moral high roads are suicide. Multi-front is the only way to wage 4th gen warfare.

Optical on the streets, Waffen on the deeps.

It's simple as.

You are all mongoloid tier. Learn from your enemy and dialectic like the jew. Perceived moral high roads are suicide. Multi-front is the only way to wage 4th gen warfare. **Optical on the streets, Waffen on the deeps.** It's simple as.

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

There has to be a Political wing that promotes the cause and inspires the people , and gives them something to rally around , the face of the movement if you will. There also needs to be an operational wing , the boots on the ground , doing the necessary " dirty work ". Think the IRA in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein was the Political wing ,IRA was the operational wing.

I don't care for the IRA , too commie for me , but they accomplished their goal. Gnomesayyin ?

[–] 1 pt

When India freed itself from British rule, there were two fronts in that fight.

On one hand, you had Gandhi, peacefully pressing for the freedom of his people. He was popular in the news, and focused primarily on his own people, rather than combating the enemy. Despite the mythology around him, he accomplished very little, and never could have won a battle for independence.

What is less remembered about India's independence is that it was violently won. Terrorists like Singh killed British officials and destroyed British property. Importantly, rebels didn't focus on fighting the military; they were sure to include the elite and economic interests in their attacks. Small groups of decentralized resistance kept popping up, almost spontaneously becoming a threat to the foreign ruling class, in such a way that could not be predicted.

It was "bad optics". The British-dominated media smeared these folks hard. Since the British couldn't destroy them by taking down any one group, or focusing on any one area, they had to clamp down on Indian rights everywhere. There were plenty of people who blamed the terrorists for the increasing brutality of the British empire. Terrible optics.

However, the Indian fighters didn't comply just because the news smeared them. They didn't stop fighting because cowards blamed them. They didn't wait for the Indian arms of the military - who reported to the British - to come free them from the British. They kept fighting. More British kept dying. The British rulers in India had a reason to be scared. Those rulers clamped down harder on Indians... but that turned more Indians against them, and it became even more difficult to rule.

Resistance was coming from every direction, and British economic and political elites never knew where they would be safe. Indians suffered for years, but the British eventually realized that it wasn't worth the risk of being in India, and tyranny didn't mitigate that risk.

Of course, the British were worried about their own optics. They didn't want to be the empire who fell to a bunch of terrorist subjects, who would now be called "freedom fighters" in the history books. Not only was it embarrassing, but it might give their other colonies ideas. It was America all over again.

So they starting talking with Gandhi. He was the face of peaceful protest and talks, rather than the face of killing British in the streets. Their media first popularized him as an annoyance, but then held him up as a righteous leader of people who loved India, rather than a soothsayer for cowards. It was a nice story, and when it looked like the British were giving into Gandhi, everyone celebrated. The British even came out of the situation looking kind of good - they seemed like the massive empire that really listened to a holy man about human rights, and then promoted freedom.

Do you think that massive empire, who killed many Indians in that fight, really cared about one Indian guy going on hunger strikes? He was propped up as a marketable alternative, in case they needed one.

But, regardless of how the story was portrayed in the end, India was still free. Britain had most of the media power, controlled the optics, made their enemies look bad, made themselves look as tolerable as they possibly could, and distracted the world from what was really happening... but in the end, India was still free.

The dictatorial governors in America, the handful of financiers that buy our major elections, the tech giants that manipulate the public conversation, the agents that follow orders which violate the constitution, the media moguls in their propaganda offices... I sometimes wonder what would happen if they were scared of violating American's rights. Anyone who could make them scared would certainly be accused of bad optics. As is often pointed out - the media would turn against them, and the elites would use it as an excuse to tyrannize us faster than they already are. But I wonder what would happen if the tyrannous were afraid to walk the streets.

I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope a good leader steps forth, with a plan to peacefully protest tyranny. I hope that he rallies the people who love America to speak in one voice - we deserve freedom. And maybe our ruling class will realize they care about human rights, and sit down to talk with him.

[–] 0 pt

What do you mean exactly? Like lying to people?

[–] 0 pt

By any means necessary.

In war, the enemy gets a vote.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

The only way to win is to organize, its impossible otherwise. And while I do see that happening to some extent, its not enough, it's quickly quelled.

Idea off the top of my head, copying the tactics of our enemies, an aggregate app that combined the user base of all allies and sympathizers to organize flash mob protests, that is one example of the organization that has to happen.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

It's been tried before fren.

You can't reinvent a wheel when fucking feds come in and gulag you for it.

Hell, even the milquetoast Proud Boys CivNat alcoholics club tried this and look how that went for them.

Organization and leadership paints targets.

Decentralization and enumerated cadres are the only answer to what the enemy is fighting us with currently.

Obviously the bigger that cadre can be, and the more hierarchically networked it is, the better(but this brings risk and infiltration); but this idea of "we have to win the normies to our cause and have a mob" or "I can't do it alone" are just frightened copes. To organize with leadership the optics game must be played. This is why big tech and censorship is really enemy #1. Saint Nasim and all that, because the minute we have access to those platforms, the malleable minds of the normies would fall quickly to the autist salvos. 1 top shelf propagandist is worth 1000 boogbois.

It's not an end all be all guide, but it is a fantastic starting point imo.

America First is a strong rally point. Remember: "Optical in the streets, Waffen in the deeps".

Translation: hide your fucking power level, but hone it. Be radical without being too radical. Tact and adaptation are required.

[–] 0 pt

It's really just another form of simping, if you think about it.

[–] 0 pt

Not really.

It's playing the hand that has been dealt.