I want to talk to you about the scotus mandate decision and what I see coming to america between 2022 and 2024. I want to tell you it will get better. Its not. On the supreme court and mandates, I don't care what their decisions are. I am beyond caring about them or their so-called government. Their decision is a formality. Last election I voted on write in. "I withdraw my consent to be governed." I meant it. I don't acknowledge the federal government. I don't consider it legitimate. I consider it a coercive occupation. Your appeals to "that wont stop you from being killed/tortured/imprisoned/destroyed!" irrelevant to me because I have lived under threat of that for my political opinions, for years. And at some point recently I just completely lost that fear. And millions of citizens live under that fear. I find that entirely unacceptable, and the games the two parties play while denying us real representation, utterly intolerable. There are some who like to rail about "muh internet bad-asses!", and "talking shit on the internet!", all they like, or how all talk is stupid, but they fundamentally misunderstand something. A percentage of us 'internet badasses' shooting from the hip, are genuine about saying 'no' to enforcement, up to and including, forcibly ejecting, bundy-ranch style those trying to force it on us. Their words, the words of those saying "muh internet bad-asses!" and "americans will never do anything!" either come from a place of dishonesty, or fear. They're still committed to the slow path. The "legitimate" path. And there are **very** good arguments to be made in favor of that path. For the rest of us, many of us no longer will tolerate living in fear of our government. Many of us will no longer self-censor whenever someone comes along to fearmonger about federal agents and contractors being "everywhere!", that "you can't say that!", "you can't make posts or speak like that!". We can and we will. And this is actually important if you *want* to preserve peace. Whats essentially happening with the u.s. federal and state governments, and governments in the west is this: They have had active suppression of speech for years. The regular stories you hear about over reach. The stories about people facing arrest and years in jail for their political speech. The court system and process-as-punishment used for peaceful political activity like protests that support ideologies that the government vehemently and violently wants to suppress. Protests shut down, and leaders badjacketed and destroyed because they were against gun control, or abortion, or unlimited immigration, or against war, etc. I did a poll a while back asking people how often they self-censored. How often do people write something on social media, here, and elsewhere, and then change it, remove parts of it, or even decide not to post at all? How often do they decide not to go to protests or engage in political activity for fear of prosecution or assault by leftwing mobs? For many people it was dozens of times a month. And this extends to millions of Americans, and people in the west. Now the problem with this is, typically, when people get sufficiently upset to form mobs, or violent groups, the state gets a forewarning in the form of speech and grievance airing, usually extreme and volatile in nature. Except for years they have terrorized people into silence using media hitpieces and demonization, and stories of informants everywhere, and people being destroyed for their speech. And so gradually, a **very serious and deadly** situation has formed in America and western nations: Rather than becoming *louder and more vocal* about their anger, before the state either answers grievances or it boils over into violence--rather than getting louder, the public paradoxically *becomes quieter*. They start to speak in euphemisms, and quotes from gulag archipelago talking about ambushes. They start displaying flags that go from "don't tread on me" and instead become "the tree of liberty must be watered with **blood**." This is not an uncorrelated coincidental phenomenon. These "ephemeral" or symbolic showings, the seeming *lack* of public anger should be **frightening** to law enforcement. It should be **frightening** to guys sitting in three letter agencies and fusion centers monitoring public chatter. Because these symbols, and these euphemisms, are being used as replacements for direct "if then" type threats that would otherwise **already** be being made in public speech, at CRT meetings, at political rallies, online, and by locals at public events and gatherings. This is what I call "shop talk". An "if-then" type threat represents a sort of psychological 'red line'. Its actually a *self-soothing* behavior individuals and groups of people make, in order to cope with severe psychological agitation, and it is most closely correlated with explosive anger preceding violence. Often it is preceded by false 'if-thens', what we call "blowing off steam." and again it is a coping-mechanism as people in a group that feel violated or mistreated, attempt to self-regulate their emotions and work through those problems by engaging in what amounts to fantasy talk either among themselves (public proclamations) or among like minded individuals. And this is critical to the current sentiment in america, and I will explain why in a moment. Now I haven't explained what an "if-then" redline is. It is a type of threat-response warning speech, that follows a specific pattern: "if XYZ (government, official, person, group, etc) does ABC one more time, then we're just gonna IJK (some action such as shooting, beating up, light on fire, doesn't really matter)". The format, in a nutshell, is if "TARGET does PERCEIVED_WRONG again THEN we'll retaliate with SOME_ACTION." Now again, returning back to what I said earlier, its critical to understand there are actually true and false if-then redline statements made by the public. it's critical because the act of *suppressing* redline statements does not stop with the true variety. Political policies, persecution, and other actions by illegitimate governments (which also help to create the usually irreversible impression of illegitimacy to begin with), have *no way of differentiating reliably* between blowing off steam and true statements. And because of this, the suppression and perception of persecution creates a psychological 'pressure cooker' environment that becomes more volatile with time, in a feedback loop of action by the state, followed by people clamping down on their speech, and resorting to outward symbols, followed by the state growing worried by the *lack* of anger or response, and clamping down further. And while the act of political suppression and fear tactics serves to isolate and create a feeling of being a political or ideological minority, it also creates a 'silent cohort' which can create the potential for dangerous, and *seemingly spontaneous* flare ups of violence and public volatility. The problem with this is that as the symbolic externalization of anger grows, it creates a tipping point in public perception. Every time someone makes these veiled statements, or displays one of these symbols, or says something thats adjacent to violence "tar and feather them!", a process plays out in those that are like-minded or even generally dissatisfied 1. they witness the symbol or speech 2. they think "huh, theres others like me?" 3. they express support for the individual or group from step one. 4. the source group thinks 'huh, theres others like me?" and is encouraged further 5. this process repeats until a tipping point is reached, critical mass. 6. many people come to the *seemingly coincidental*, and *spontaneous* conclusion, that they are actually the majority, or a sufficiently large minority, to not be alone if they speak out. This is the "crack in the dam" moment. This serves as an emergent "consensus forming" mechanism. Thats actually a really critical observation to take in. And this consensus event can be triggered by any number of external events, and there is some percentage of the population at any one of these steps at any given time. If they don't coincide, then the mechanism fails to reach the spontaneous critical mass sufficient for people to reach the next step. But if the process continues long enough, and the pressure cooker environment continues, eventually enough people pass the threshold of awareness to reach the next step. 7. And now this is the *very* dangerous bit. Those people, because the redlining step, that usually serves the psychological duty cycle as a "cooling off" mechanism, was suppressed--when they reach that step, the typical rate of escalation or deescalation (the 'discussion and group formation' phase that follows a popular revolt) where the state and officials would have time to correct course and answer grievances? The public, now past the point of caring about the consequences, **accelerate their talk and escalation** towards violence. Psychologically it looks like a dam breaking, or an eruption of a volcano. Its inexplicable and sudden. These are the seven steps starting with political repression, that cause the state to miss the prerequisites for large scale political violence. They're also the seven steps that lead to the state losing control of political violence. Ironically, they're not entirely unaware of this problem, if this scenario hasn't been manufactured deliberately to begin with. The question is not how do you suppress this, because the very nature of the process itself represents the catastrophic failure of political suppression tactics to begin with. No. The question is how do you, once you realize the process is playing out, how do you *deescalate* it when both compromise and deescalation look like just more political suppression adding fuel to the fire? What they've essentially done is created an entire cohort of between 500,000 and 1.5 million citizens (just in the u.s.) who have been placed outside any further belief in the peaceful political process. And that has almost entirely been because of actions by clinton, george bush, obama, trump, and biden, and the respective congresses and federal agencies and news propaganda. Thats half a million to one point five million citizens who have been steeped and inculcated into the belief that they are permanently politically disenfranchised, and had the idea of political violence **normalized** for them, and likewise internalized the belief that the federal and state governments and respective investigative and law enforcement powers, along with the parties, have politically abandoned them to leftwing violence, and that likewise, the parties are openly hostile to their interests and the political process has no chance or ability to change that. You've essentially cornered people. Told them their way of life is going to change, permanently, drastically, for the worse, and that they will not be allowed a say in that. That they are going to be exposed to more crime. More violence. Lower quality of life. Lower job prospects. That their children will suffer through even worse than that. Demonized them. All but outright told them they will not be allowed to have a political voice or be allowed to stop this process because "you're racist white supremacists!". You've told them, all but guaranteed to their face, that you fully intend to ramp up gun laws, ramp up confiscatory taxes, ramp up political controls of the right to travel (passports, gasoline taxes, restrictions on vehicles in favor of electric vehicles which can be electronically managed or restricted on a whim). That you intend, if they refuse to cooperate with CRT, to label them racist, hostile, and violent, and separate families, or at least normalize the discussion thereof. You've told these people that you are turning the entirety of the federal apparatus against them, that they are to be looked at and treated as suspect terrorists and threats, and done all of this, often with public endorsements and statements from officials, only to call them liars, nutters, and conspiracy theorists, when they protest these very statements by activists and the officials that endorse those activists. You've silenced them, and when they've protested, you used that protest as proof of the "racism", "supremacy", and "terrorism" labels you used to justify that very censorship and demonization and persecution. Breibart got it right when he said, eventually people would say "fuck you. War." Because for a lot of this half million to two million people who are now permanently disaffected from the government and corporate wallstreet and silicon valley--what you have done they already perceive as a war. [PART TWO](https://poal.co/s/Opinion/491444)