Why is there no one looking for the communist leadership in the USA? Who was making the blm riot calls?

[–] • 13 pts

... because, if you haven't noticed yet, the FBI is a politically motivated arm of the Democrat party.

link

[–] • 4 pts

Close, the FBI are the political police of the ADL.

parent
link

[–] • 3 pts

ADL controls both parties.

"don't worry just vote red and they'll save us guys from the Demonrats" is retarded mindset of brainwashed sheep.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Correct.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

FIB exists (and probably always has) to cover up the crimes of the political & criminal elite that govern the tyrannical techno state. They serve no colors, ideology, or political creed.

The FIB are just thugs for hire - lawyers with guns. They are one of many enemies of the American people.

Act accordingly.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

the FBI is a politically motivated arm of the Democrat party.

the FBI is a politically motivated arm of the ~~Democrat party.~~ the occupation government in DC that pretends to be two parties, while really being a syndicate of federal departments and bureaucrats, combine with pharmaceutical executives, congressional blocs with special interest investors, and a vast sprawling propaganda outlet that takes daily headlines directly from the CIA. All marching in lockstep with foreign spy agencies, called "five eyes", and the two biggest investors in america: blackrock and vanguard.

We are a soft military dictatorship, technically an oligarchy. Focusing on one party won't fix this, because politics won't fix this.

There is no ballot box.

parent
link

[–] • 8 pts

Why would jews look for jews?

(((BLM)))

The jewish created, financed and operated terrorist group? The one supported by the jewish administration? How is this thread a serious question?

link

[–] • 8 pts

We know who they are already. The problem is that they are untouchable as long as the masses are asleep. They are protected by the police, media, FBI, even the army in the form of the National Guard. No amount of evidence or proof will take them down as long as they can just call it 'Fake News'.

All revolutions must be democratic in the purest sense. We must all lift together. Only when the power of a unified people outweighs the power of the police, media, FBI, etc. can these enemies be confronted.

link

[–] • 3 pts

I think the folks who are predicting Balkanization are 100% dead-on. The pockets of cohesive groups of people around the country who could come together and shut this down...most of what I hear from them when they will speak openly is..."Fight to restore what? Let it burn. We are building new."

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

"Fight to restore what? Let it burn. We are building new."

Theres actually another reason for that.

Putting together a group large enough to do anything isn't trivial. And if you do, you're immediately in a position thats essentially fighting uphill if you do anything at all that the state defines as verboten, such as actual combat. So the groups that

managed to form despite all other factors that would typically disrupt organizing
are capable of things that directly hurt the occupation

ask a simple set of questions:

all things being equal, if they chose to go outside 'the rules' set by the enemy
do they stand a chance?
if they don't stand a chance at their given strength, and if they were determined to engage the occupation, what is the risk vs. chance of success if they pursued growth before action?

All that make it to step three, must conclude, that the chances of success, at every step are very minimal, even for the capable groups with the right circumstances, experience, and people.

Their conclusion will always be "let it burn, we'll survive either way."

However that doesn't rule out another possible scenario

many of these groups form
some catalyzing series of events or national situation develops to 'activate' them
there is a unifying network to bring them into the fold.

In fact if I were the occupation, I'd basically want to trigger that exact scenario, only far too early for the american people and citizens of western nations to develop any sort of momentum that might be a threat to begin with. Sort of like lancing and disinfecting a wound before it becomes gangrene.

Call it the "failed ignition" model of american civil war. If you're the occupation, you don't want a full conflagration. You want 'brush fires' that never become anything more than localized wildfires. Enough to look like the real deal, but not enough to go anywhere. Draw in all the dead wood (dissidents), and clear it out. Balancing the size, scale, and scope would be important not only to prevent losing control and kicking off something real, but because most of us in the american public are now keenly aware, even the average guy, when something seems rotten, and those same members of the public will be right quick to disengage before even showing up if they think the wind is blowing the wrong way, and the entire scenario isn't organic. The public has the scent of blood so to speak, and won't be easily fooled into something of this scope, least of all because events like J6 took a small coalition of america and brought the awareness to the entirety of america. What awareness? That national events and national conversations are *wholly artificial, that almost no one that appears on television can be trusted, that almost anyone who has nay clout is to be, at the least, if not reviled, mistrusted by default. The public understands now, they get it, that america runs on propaganda so pervasive, that we're now no better than soviet russia's pravda. No one who gets any air time at all is legit, and anyone who isn't immediately permabanned or silenced from social media isn't trustworthy, no matter how many times they claim they were 'censored and then let back on with a warning'. That legitimizing mechanism doesn't work anymore.

And so, for there to be a large scale conflict, I think it will either have to happen seemingly out-of-the-blue, or started by the occupation itself.

No groups are going to start it. And if the DC junta decide to kick it off, they'll kick it off earlier than any organic uprising. And I'm pretty sure they'll fuck it up, because american enemies will use the opportunity to attack american infrastructure, both through cyber and kinetic methods, while pushing the national sentiment to boiling so DC loses control of its little 'civil war' shitshow.

They are competent. But barely.

The real problem is that our international opposition is competent, significantly, compared to the u.s. and western occupation governments.

> "Fight to restore what? Let it burn. We are building new." Theres actually another reason for that. Putting together a group large enough to do anything isn't trivial. And if you do, you're immediately in a position thats essentially fighting uphill if you do anything at all that the state defines as verboten, such as actual combat. So the groups that 1. managed to form despite all other factors that would typically disrupt organizing 2. are capable of things that directly hurt the occupation ask a simple set of questions: 1. all things being equal, if they chose to go outside 'the rules' set by the enemy 2. do they stand a chance? 3. if they don't stand a chance at their given strength, and if they *were* determined to engage the occupation, what is the risk vs. chance of success if they pursued growth before action? All that make it to step three, must conclude, that the chances of success, at every step are very minimal, even for the capable groups with the right circumstances, experience, and people. Their conclusion will always be "let it burn, we'll survive either way." However that doesn't rule out another possible scenario 1. many of these groups form 2. some catalyzing series of events or national situation develops to 'activate' them 3. there is a unifying network to bring them into the fold. In fact if I were the occupation, I'd basically want to trigger that exact scenario, only far too early for the american people and citizens of western nations to develop any sort of momentum that might be a threat to begin with. Sort of like lancing and disinfecting a wound before it becomes gangrene. Call it the "failed ignition" model of american civil war. If you're the occupation, you don't want a full conflagration. You want 'brush fires' that never become anything more than localized wildfires. Enough to look like the real deal, but not enough to go anywhere. Draw in all the dead wood (dissidents), and clear it out. Balancing the size, scale, and scope would be important not only to prevent losing control and kicking off something real, but because most of us in the american public are now *keenly* aware, even the average guy, when something seems rotten, and those same members of the public will be right quick to disengage *before even showing up* if they think the wind is blowing the wrong way, and the entire scenario isn't organic. The public has the scent of blood so to speak, and won't be easily fooled into something of this scope, least of all because events like J6 took a small coalition of america and brought the awareness to the *entirety* of america. What awareness? That national events and national conversations are **wholly* artificial, that **almost no one** that appears on television can be trusted, that almost anyone who has nay clout is to be, at the **least**, if not reviled, mistrusted *by default*. The public understands now, they get it, that america runs on propaganda so pervasive, that we're now no better than soviet russia's pravda. No one who gets any air time at all is legit, and anyone who isn't immediately permabanned or silenced from social media isn't trustworthy, no matter how many times they claim they were 'censored and then let back on with a warning'. That legitimizing mechanism doesn't work anymore. And so, for there to be a large scale conflict, I think it will either have to happen seemingly out-of-the-blue, or started by the occupation itself. No groups are going to start it. And if the DC junta decide to kick it off, they'll kick it off earlier than any organic uprising. And I'm pretty sure they'll fuck it up, because american enemies will use the opportunity to attack american infrastructure, both through cyber and kinetic methods, while pushing the national sentiment to boiling so DC loses control of its little 'civil war' shitshow. They are competent. But barely. The real problem is that our international opposition *is* competent, significantly, compared to the u.s. and western occupation governments.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

I don't expect much in the way of outright head-to-head resistance ever if I'm honest. And maybe, sort of as you say, that's the method of last resort anyway. I would not be at all surprised to start seeing sabotage of federally-managed infrastructure and guerilla tactics. I mean...it has certainly worked for "our enemies" in the last few conflicts with the US mil.

What is this? Fifth Generation War now? Sixth? What is the modern equivalent of the Colonists refusing to march row-and-column into battle and instead hide behind trees and pot shot? Whatever that looks like for the current generation...