![Tastes like rancid used whore pussy [720x1280 - 136KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/h5GSjm.jpg){kind=link}
Agreed, money is not what matters here. It is just a means to an end, in my mind that end would be the acquisition of a significant amount of land. Incorporate a township and have the space for agriculture and maybe some industry. Kinda like the Amish or Mennonites but different.
. It is just a means to an end, in my mind that end would be the acquisition of a significant amount of land.
Well thats part of it.
But more broadly. Why acquire some of the land, when you can take back all of the land?
Our side has been doing retreat for so long we forgot the purpose of retreat.
If you retreat, only use it to fortify yourself, and come back harder, to regroup, rest, and come up with a new strategy.
From the amount of talk I see on here, twitter, gab, parler, and elsewhere, about "back to the land" plans, I assume again, our side is largely only thinking one step ahead (again). And that makes me conclude this message is actually being encouraged by the enemy. Why? Because the enemy already has a plan, is thinking two steps ahead, and intends to funnel us into something or other, to our great disadvantage, once again.
"land is good", having a strategy is good, but what are we missing here.
We should be thinking about the possible snares, and means this could be exploited, in order to head off those obstacles early.
I don't disagree you one bit, I like to think of my idea as a beach head, one of many that will be necessary. Taking back what's still being stolen can be a prickly situation if done too overtly. Getting Waco'd is a real possibility. Of course I look at it as fighting subversion with subversion, it took generations to get in the current situation and it's gonna take generations to get out of it. The other option is the big ugly one and I honestly don't think there is enough people ready to fight, the support isn't there right now.
I don't disagree you one bit, I like to think of my idea as a beach head, one of many that will be necessary.
You have to move past fear and see how that could be used as an advantage. Thats how far past fear you have to move, to exercise your rights to speak freely, and all your other rights too, enough to provoke the government.
The ideal struggle is one where you 1. don't ever fight against a superior force, which is always a disadvantage 2. and provoke the opposing force into overreacting, brutalizing and abusing your side.
This provokes the public, garnering their full support in the process.
The best position to be in is the ability to
weather any blow, or loss of part of your organization or movement (because whoever holds out the longest wins)
appear threatening to the enemy, but completely harmless in practice
the public can see the harmlessness, but the enemy can't. All the enemy sees is the apparent threat.
And with each overreach, more people turn against the state. With each brutality, more people question. With each mistake, the state is forced to lock down on dissent harder, clamp down on dissidents with more brutality and draconian measures, until it has lost all credibility.
At that point, you have all the supporters you need. And all that it requires is that you're brave enough.
(post is archived)