I am saddened because I believe it is possible, but won't happen anyways.

I am saddened that it is going to happen at all, let alone that the collapse of the illegitimate federal government is necessary to preserve our interests and American geopolitical integrity.

And yet it is.

The timeline being 1-5 years out helps Americans a lot.

Its not too late to turn things around, or move the scenario more into American favor versus the occupation.

Logistics and organization are the critical factors, and will be what makes or breaks it all. Namely messaging and narrative control, neither of which you can do without said organization and logistics.

I look forward to watching what happens over the next few years, and what direction America goes.

Oh, it’s possible. Very Possible.

I think its not merely possible, but probable , that at some point, some set of actors, be they foreign, or domestic regime, will attempt to kick something off. And I think the reasoning will be to head off a larger challenge in the future, namely a conflict they wont be able to guarantee control over.

Thats how I would do it if I ran the u.s.

Force my opponents into a premature conflict before my opposition grows too vocal and too organized.

I just got done posting on this very topic to another:

https://poal.co/s/multiculturalcancer/478780/2ee6f64f-98b1-4ed9-b409-27dd843c3559

Now we have all manner of obstacles when it comes to this, and it's not just with the lockdown, as well before it, whenever anyone tried to set up a meeting with others no one showed up, the forums these gathering were posted in were filled with people saying that the meeting was a setup, the posters were feds, etc.

See thats putting the cart first. First learn from the occupation's playbook. Always always learn from the opposition. You're talking revolution or rebellion or what have you, but thats getting way ahead. Just think one or two steps ahead.

You don't need the guys who walk through the door ready and willing to lay their life down in some combat or other. You don't. For starters, who in their right and sober mind gets approached to join some rebellion or other, and just agrees to that out of hand? Who does that? They don't have anything to offer, because again, they have nothing to lose.

You want people who have something to lose, because they have something to offer to the cause. And people who have something to lose are averse to drastic measures, averse to violence.

So you don't come out swinging, telling them its "all or nothing."

You ask them "what are you capable of?" and "what do you have to offer?" Or "what are you willing to volunteer to do?"

There doesn't have to be any big talk or shoptalk about violence, or war, or any of that faff. The only question is "can you do xyz? Can you provide xyz? Are you able to volunteer for xyz?"

Thats it.

People have different levels of commitment. They have different levels of commitment depending on your most recent successes, and failures. They even have different levels of commitment when they first volunteer from the get go. They have different amounts of risk, physical, legal, and otherwise, that they are comfortable absorbing. So some things, many things in fact, are going to be completely off limits to the vast majority of people except in the most dire of circumstances.

So you go into every recruitment or volunteer pitch with the same understanding: what are you willing and able to do or provide? Thats all you want to know, and you're happy to take all comers, because the guy willing to do something, anything , is infinitely more valuable than any number of well wishers in the public or online. You only reject who you have to, which is usually felons and drug addicts.

Like Kevin Mitnick had famously said, a lot of the effort that goes into security is about giving off the appearance of being more secure than you actually are, and the more secure some system appears to be, the more likely they are to be trying to keep you from finding that deadly exploit that they know exists within their system.

I see this as both wrong and right at the same time, but i'm glad you're familiar. The wrong kind of anonymity or privacy, isn't security, but actually the opposite: Its why the three percenters and oath keepers were large, visible, and public, and did a lot of volunteer work. They realized the "secretiveness" of their militias were being used to create probable cause, as a pretense for federal agencies to destroy and politically suppress them.

Familiarize yourself with when privacy is important and when its a hindrance or danger to an organization. For example, how many of the J6 would currently be locked up in Dc's Gitmo II if they had chosen to wear masks and leave their smartphones at home or in one location?

The perception of our people matters as well.

Yes and no. Again, know when perception is important and when its not. Contractors and NGOs try to push us away from the idea of "optics" because optics affects legitimacy, and you have to have legitimacy in order to win over the middle. And you have to win the middle if you want political change without combat.

90% optics is important. An example of when it should have been ignored is again, J6 and masks. Despite how they would have been portrayed, they absolutely should have been wearing masks. Minimal cost security measure, at the expense of ribbing from the media and antifa, but many of them would be free right now, if their idealism and image weren't as important as their pragmatism.

The alt right was a very successful movement that had a great momentum to it, and would've gob on to do wonders if it wasn't stopped.

I think they were primarily a foil and a tool to misdirect and then tear down the nascent populist energy brewing in America. I don't think they did their job, except temporarily. Maybe I'm wrong though.

It would've been a time of enlightenment if not for the fall of the alt right in the eyes of its most ardent supporters, and that was a facilitated fall from grace, don't get me wrong here. First, there was the matter that we wanted perfection from its main figures, we were looking for a reason to doubt or abandon them, and we were given it amply, we should've accepted that they'd be deeply flawed in some way, and kept with them just because they were still so effective at getting things done.

Their mistake was their ideological focus, which is what made it if not easy, at least straightforward, to discredit them.

The left and the right act to legitimize each other . Thats the function of their infighting, the false parties system. Anyone that tries to join, however perfect for one of the parties--anyone who isn't invited and doesn't belong , doesn't even get invited. Doesn't get debated by the other side . Gets little air time. They're essentially person non-grata, a ghost.

What was needed was not an alt-right, but radical alt-center. A "reboot" of the parties. A clash of both right and left.

Instead we got the squad in congress, which means it would be a hard sell now to get our own 'alt left' setup to re-legitimize the alt-right, but the mechanics of it remain the same: The depth and breadth of the debate and infighting between the parties, attracts eyeballs, and defines the sliding window of legitimacy, without which a group doesn't politically matter, unless its 40-50 years old+ and further right than the neo-DNC (GOP) rats claim to be, i.e. the tea party before being co-opted.

We should've treated them the way effective politicians were treated, where their failings were kept far away from their ability to produce the changes we wanted to see, instead we put the parts of them we didn't approve of front and center, and then we distanced ourselves from them with a sense of pride, by doing that, we had confidently shot ourselves in the foot.

I think its more like the leftwing media did that for us. Because again, we're not controlling the debate, the narrative, or the perceptions. When we have people on all sides, it makes it harder for them to do that, because it makes the parties look weak when they tear down their own. Its why the DNC stopped attacking the squad, when they realized what it was doing to them.

In any case this is all political bullshit, and doesn't functionally matter, because the occupation legitimized its coup (really ongoing for years, in congress and the rest of the u.s.), and is basically operating with impunity at this point.

Same thing with the riots, we should've done what golden dawn had seen great success in doing, by going to those who suffer from the effects of the problems we want to solve and help them out in a very public way, showing that we see the things everyone is trying to look away from or excuse out of their minds, and we actually care about making these things better, that goes a long way.

Its good that you examine what other organizations do, and what works and what doesn't. Very pragmatic.

We need to form an psyops group that studies psychology the way the enemy has, and finds ways to reverse engineer their methods of mind control so that they could be used effectively by us and for our cause.

Just ape their strategies and tactics, minus the violence. You can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that it created it, but you can grind it to a standstill and stalemate. And theres far more of us than them in that regard.

We don't have to be smarter than them. We just have to work as hard as they do, and last longer than they do. Thats all.

"Build the wall" as it were, and let them proverbially claw, and smash their way to peices against it.

Last is that we need a mecia presence, we need to focus on getting people with short attention span to watch the stuff we produce, and keep their minds tickled with mental reactions to what we produce.

I think the online sphere is overrated, and overcooked at this point, serving as little more than backdrop for discussion (and definitely not recruitment) and as a passive means of passing along information or video of events that happen in real life. Its not a two way funnel anymore. Its lost that aspect for the most part. The physical affects the virtual, the middle and its attitudes, but it doesn't let us draw on them any more, not really. Not when they can turn the thumbscrews, and cut off message boards, social media, recruitment, donations, organizations, and so on.

So theres the question of, if we're not doing it for recruitment, donations, or broader organization, what are we using it for then? And the answer is: organization among ourselves , and using real world events to influence the public passively, not unlike the media does now. And thats pretty much the limit.

We need to find presenters with the right voices and sense of humor, we need to find artists with the right style and quality.

Agreed.

Voices but not leadership.

Figureheads but not politicians

Icons without representatives.

And then we reverse engineer it to do the same, but for our own message instead, then we apply what we had learned, and to do that, we need writers that can make something subversive, that the normies would watch and recommend to others, without fully realizing what it is, but still getting the subtextual implications that affects how think of things, program their minds to come to our conclusions and believe it was their own doing.

I agree fully.

Or just copy ifunny. Go where the people are, and make your organization or movement a meme.

You realize that actual boots on the ground, hand to hand and gun warfare isn't even needed currently right? Why waste perfectly good fighting men for a war that can be prevented? I also noted your numbers are off and disqualify about 50% of the human race as even support staff which traditionally women have always been at least. (Not to mention the various female veterans that have actually BEEN to war and have training in combat skills and combat medical skills)

This has nothing to do with the "women cant fight" meme, and is simply the fact that I don't even want to stomach the idea of women fighting and dying. Call it a blindspot on my part.

do not forget your support because an army doesn't march without supply lines and support.

Absolutely, I love that, and I'd love to hear more of it from everybody.

I'm concerned about heading off violence, and the problem I see looks like this:

Some element of the u.s. government, probably the DoD, an a whole host of affiliates in the media, wallstreet, DC, and NGOs, appear to be pushing the u.s. toward mass violence/civil conflict.

It also appears they are overestimating their ability to predict when, where, how, such a conflict arises, and overestimating their control in such an event.

What they intend to be a brushfire or controlled burn of civil liberties, I think will instead devolve into a conflagration.

Theres too many people with too many problems and grievances, and too many ways it can go wrong for the regime.

And I think if or when it goes down, the u.s. will (if not already) launch into a disastrous war, and while we wont suffer an invasion, I think we'll likely suffer large scale sabotage of infrastructure, and or missile strikes or other attacks on major cities. And in the short span of a year while we're recovering, assuming we dont go to ww3, we'll lose a beat on the international geopolitical stage, and our opponents will very rapidly make lightening quick moves to divest from the dollar and swap currencies and commodities, leaving us to twist in the wind.

That is how I see the next 2-5 years going down.

In short the DoD and occupation have overestimated their ability to control their own internal factions or manage a nation of 327 million people in a national crisis of sufficient size.

They're not incompetent, but they're definitely borderline in aggregate at least.