4.
Why is like the old reddit saying. Some of us just want to watch the world burn.
4.
Why is like the old reddit saying. Some of us just want to watch the world burn.
- I don't like your options, they are silly.
6. I don't like your options, they are silly.
We are going to have to shoot our way out of this mess. That's why it won't happen.
We are going to have to shoot our way out of this mess. That's why it won't happen.
That's why it won't happen.
You expect to fight off an army, a horde of semi-armed retards, and the whole of the politiburo trash, all by your lonely lonesome, or maybe with a gang of 15-20 patriots, half of which will be federali homos and secret police working for the regime?
Start a party. There will be plenty of armed dudes that will be willing to join.
Or did you think the brownshirts just appeared out of nowhere, with no political organization beforehand?
> That's why it won't happen.
You expect to fight off an army, a horde of semi-armed retards, and the whole of the politiburo trash, all by your lonely lonesome, or maybe with a gang of 15-20 patriots, half of which will be federali homos and secret police working for the regime?
Start a party. There will be plenty of armed dudes that will be willing to join.
Or did you think the brownshirts just appeared out of nowhere, with no political organization beforehand?
Brown shirts were traitors to their own families.
Brown shirts were traitors to their own families.
Brown shirts were traitors to their own families.
Brown shirts fought the bolshevik scum in the street.
> Brown shirts were traitors to their own families.
Brown shirts fought the bolshevik scum in the street.
If only there were a legitimate party to join. They all get infiltrated almost immediately by Feds and informants .
If only there were a legitimate party to join.
They all get infiltrated almost immediately by Feds and informants .
They all get infiltrated almost immediately by Feds and informants .
Thats the purpose. Out them. Entrap them. Expose them. Let the public see. Run them haggard and exhaust their legitimacy. A thousand brush fires of freedom, both organizing locals, and giving them their very first hands on lesson about 'the thin blue line'.
Would that I could I'd take a thousand guys like that one piece of shit shouting down parents at PTA meetings, and put him in every single school administration. The louder, the more arrogant, the better. The more we can provoke them, embolden them, the more it will stoke the public rage.
And a thousand political voices, of a thousand local parties, at every outrage, there to seize the moment, all insidiously echoing the same message.
The u.s. government, its bureaucrats, and secret police, are rabid dogs. Down with washington. Down with big tech. Down with the banks.
Down with the left. Down with the rnc who work for them. Down with DC
And last but not least..
Down with the regime.
> They all get infiltrated almost immediately by Feds and informants .
Thats the purpose. Out them. Entrap them. Expose them. Let the public see. Run them haggard and exhaust their legitimacy.
A thousand brush fires of freedom, both organizing locals, and giving them their very first hands on lesson about 'the thin blue line'.
Would that I could I'd take a *thousand* guys like that one piece of shit shouting down parents at PTA meetings, and put him in every single school administration. The louder, the more arrogant, the better. The more we can provoke them, embolden them, the more it will stoke the public rage.
And a thousand political voices, of a thousand local parties, at every outrage, there to seize the moment, all insidiously echoing the same message.
*The u.s. government, its bureaucrats, and secret police, are rabid dogs. Down with washington. Down with big tech. Down with the banks.*
*Down with the left. Down with the rnc who work for them. Down with DC*
And last but not least..
*Down with the regime.*
I feel like you are trying to act like 5 is the "best and only option" but it is still playing a game by their rules. At any point is it not "playing" in their political system its actually just the civil war from option 2.
The real best answer is all but 1. You need multiple population groups form separate societies (3+4) that can survive a collapse while still being able to produce vital goods "food, tools, weapons" and keeping a breeding population alive.
The civil war and "new party" cleans out the old trash the best they can even if they die doing it.
This is why I support acceleration of the collapse. White men and women are strong enough to survive a collapse, even if millions of them die. I dont support the slow poison of thinking you can vote out of a prison.
I feel like you are trying to act like 5 is the "best and only option" but it is still playing a game by their rules. At any point is it not "playing" in their political system its actually just the civil war from option 2.
The real best answer is all but 1. You need multiple population groups form separate societies (3+4) that can survive a collapse while still being able to produce vital goods "food, tools, weapons" and keeping a breeding population alive.
The civil war and "new party" cleans out the old trash the best they can even if they die doing it.
This is why I support acceleration of the collapse. White men and women are strong enough to survive a collapse, even if millions of them die. I dont support the slow poison of thinking you can vote out of a prison.
I feel like you are trying to act like 5 is the "best and only option"
I'm not telling you its the only option. But it is the best option. Heres why.
I'm telling you all these options are going to happen, maybe one at a time, maybe in parallel.
Option 5 will precede option 2, whether you participate in option 5 or not.
If we do not control option 5, if it is not an organic movement, then the regime and its secret police will. And if we do not own option 5, then the regime will control the movement and outcome of option 2 and the others.
"The best way to prevent competition is to control it" is part of their core methods. Start at that premise.
Now ask yourself, when these things come to pass-- who do you want controlling any new political parties?
It's not about the votes. It's about mass movements.
Theres going to be a lot of suffering in the coming seasons and years. And when it does some group will have to be scapegoated. The only question is if we're going to allow ourselves to become that group without a voice or pushback.
> I feel like you are trying to act like 5 is the "best and only option"
I'm not telling you its the only option. But it is the best option. Heres why.
I'm telling you all these options are going to happen, maybe one at a time, maybe in parallel.
Option 5 will precede option 2, whether you participate in option 5 or not.
If we do not control option 5, if it is not an organic movement, then the regime and its secret police *will*.
And if we do not own option 5, then the regime will control the movement and outcome of option 2 and the others.
"The best way to prevent competition is to control it" is part of their core methods. Start at that premise.
Now ask yourself, when these things come to pass-- who do you want controlling any new political parties?
It's not about the votes. It's about mass movements.
Theres going to be a lot of suffering in the coming seasons and years. And when it does *some group* will have to be scapegoated.
The only question is *if we're going to allow ourselves to become that group without a voice or pushback.*
3+4 have already been happening for many years now and it wont stop until actual civil war and collapse starts, while the conviction of the people who felt they were the best options have only been proven right and made stronger with recent events.
5 is utterly irrelevant in the face of 2 (civil war). With a real and open civil war 5 is either with the civil war or is outside of it trying to play games on the other side of the "map" while the people they are claiming to protect and fight for die in war. If they are in the war then they are not doing anything about laws or political offices on the other side anyway.
If the civil war is lost 5 is dead either way being the party of the losing side, or being a party representing a dead population. If the civil war is won against the elite, you dont need to play their political games in a dead system and 5 is again irrelevant.
5 only matters if they actually won and cleaned house before war ever starts (civil or foreign war). Sure you can say 5 is both inevitable and you would be stupid not to try it, but I can also argue that its already been tried and failed repeatedly with the outcome being the continual poisoning of Whites.
Even when 5 gets its perfect win, 4 are still winners having not needed 5 to survive in the first place and not needing them to survive in the future.
I wont wait "two more weeks" for 5 to magically win and punish all the bad people and fix a mess hundreds of years in the making. I will continue to work on 4 with my family.
"that group without a voice" the only ones that can speak will be the survivors, I vote collapse because I have faith in who will be strong enough to survive.
Other than that I dont agree that what controls 5 will have an impact on the result After the civil war as the civil war would destroy the entire structure 5 is built on top of.
3+4 have already been happening for many years now and it wont stop until actual civil war and collapse starts, while the conviction of the people who felt they were the best options have only been proven right and made stronger with recent events.
5 is utterly irrelevant in the face of 2 (civil war). With a real and open civil war 5 is either with the civil war or is outside of it trying to play games on the other side of the "map" while the people they are claiming to protect and fight for die in war. If they are in the war then they are not doing anything about laws or political offices on the other side anyway.
If the civil war is lost 5 is dead either way being the party of the losing side, or being a party representing a dead population. If the civil war is won against the elite, you dont need to play their political games in a dead system and 5 is again irrelevant.
5 only matters if they actually won and cleaned house before war ever starts (civil or foreign war). Sure you can say 5 is both inevitable and you would be stupid not to try it, but I can also argue that its already been tried and failed repeatedly with the outcome being the continual poisoning of Whites.
Even when 5 gets its perfect win, 4 are still winners having not needed 5 to survive in the first place and not needing them to survive in the future.
I wont wait "two more weeks" for 5 to magically win and punish all the bad people and fix a mess hundreds of years in the making. I will continue to work on 4 with my family.
"that group without a voice" the only ones that can speak will be the survivors, I vote collapse because I have faith in who will be strong enough to survive.
Other than that I dont agree that what controls 5 will have an impact on the result After the civil war as the civil war would destroy the entire structure 5 is built on top of.
5 is utterly irrelevant in the face of 2 (civil war)
you and I both know command & control is essential. Political parties are the path to that in the event of war.
5 only matters if they actually won and cleaned house before war ever starts
"before war ever starts" -> "win before the war even starts!"
And in an instant everything you wrote becomes instantly irrelevant.
And now I know why you're so hellbent on dissuading from the notion.
Kike narrative. playbook even. "do nothing. nothing will work. especially those things which would or could because you have to finish everything before even starting! oy vey!"
It's the cart before horse argument. Not buying. No thanks. Nice try snipdick. Go back to your rainy little socialist island.
> 5 is utterly irrelevant in the face of 2 (civil war)
you and I both know command & control is essential. Political parties are the path to that in the event of war.
> 5 only matters if they actually won and cleaned house before war ever starts
"before war ever starts" -> "win before the war even starts!"
And in an instant everything you wrote becomes instantly irrelevant.
And now I know why you're so hellbent on dissuading from the notion.
Kike narrative. playbook even. "do nothing. nothing will work. especially those things which would or could because you have to finish everything before even starting! oy vey!"
It's the cart before horse argument. Not buying. No thanks. Nice try snipdick. Go back to your rainy little socialist island.
Option 5 is useless. Voting is a rigged system that is disconnected from we the people. You can start another party and it will be a certainty that it will never win any office because the one party system is in control. If voting worked, we wouldn't be allowed to do it.
Option 5 is useless. Voting is a rigged system that is disconnected from we the people. You can start another party and it will be a certainty that it will never win any office because the one party system is in control. If voting worked, we wouldn't be allowed to do it.
Option 5 allows you to consolidate angry people.
It gives you room to splinter political power by bringing sherrifs associations.
And it acts as organizational cover.
It's the basic premise asians elaborated on when they talked about the competition between open and closed systems.
That aside its a longshot.
Option 5 would be necessary to mitigate and undermine a false civil war narrative created by the secret police (FBI, CIA, DHS, , et al). Namely their attempts to establish two false sides, and decide leadership and place their own guys in the command&control hierarchy.
You can potentially politically co-opt such a movement by putting out messages that appeal to the demographic targeted by the regime--namely the ones they want to push into a conflict. And by co-opting the regime is forced to wind it down or go after you.
And then you have a grievance narrative to work with as long as you can get the demographic to identity with your political bloc.
it doesn't matter if you win elections. You're not going to. What matters is if you have public support, sympathies, and if they identify with the message.
it's how the oath-keepers recruited all the guys that they did (nevermind that their leadership is a farce.)
And its how I would do it too. Narrative co-option by pitch perfect political messaging.
We can't gain office.
However what we can do is
complicate their operations
disrupt their narratives
co-opt their political, social, economic, and other types of momentum
and raise the cost of forcing narratives and propaganda on the public
Agreeing with something is 'free real estate', least of all a movement and its supporters. If the government wants to lead the opposition against its own regime, we should lead the opposition better than them. message better. Recruit better.
Done right they'll waste enormous resources, just like they did with Q, to get their psy-op back on track. With the chance and opportunity that they fail, to our benefit.
Unless you want to fight a civil war and think you can win.
In which case I'd call you crazy.
In short, we need a new party.
And it has to be fire and brimstone type stuff. The sort of populist anger and nationalist fervor that raises the hairs on the back of DC insider' necks.
The time is right. The public sentiment is there. The support is there.
Option 5 allows you to consolidate angry people.
It gives you room to splinter political power by bringing sherrifs associations.
And it acts as organizational cover.
It's the basic premise asians elaborated on when they talked about the competition between open and closed systems.
That aside its a longshot.
Option 5 would be necessary to mitigate and undermine a false civil war narrative created by the secret police (FBI, CIA, DHS, , et al). Namely their attempts to establish two false sides, and decide leadership and place their own guys in the command&control hierarchy.
You can potentially *politically* co-opt such a movement by putting out messages that appeal to the demographic targeted by the regime--namely the ones they want to push into a conflict. And by co-opting the regime is forced to wind it down or go after you.
And then you have a grievance narrative to work with as long as you can get the demographic to identity with your political bloc.
it doesn't matter if you win elections. You're not going to. What matters is if you have public *support*, *sympathies*, and if they *identify* with the message.
it's how the oath-keepers recruited all the guys that they did (nevermind that their leadership is a farce.)
And its how I would do it too. Narrative co-option by pitch perfect political messaging.
We can't gain office.
However what we *can* do is
1. complicate their operations
2. disrupt their narratives
3. co-opt their political, social, economic, and other types of momentum
4. and raise the cost of forcing narratives and propaganda on the public
Agreeing with something is 'free real estate', least of all a movement and its supporters.
If the government wants to *lead* the opposition against its own regime, we should lead the opposition *better* than them. message better. Recruit better.
Done right they'll waste *enormous* resources, just like they did with Q, to get their psy-op back on track.
With the chance and opportunity that they fail, to our benefit.
Unless you want to fight a civil war and think you can win.
In which case I'd call you crazy.
In short, we need a new party.
And it has to be fire and brimstone type stuff. The sort of populist anger and nationalist fervor that raises the hairs on the back of DC insider' necks.
The time is right. The public sentiment is there. The support is there.
Some politicians arent even human, am I racist? Some fires burn without a physical flame, am I cold if I say I just dont care.
Some politicians arent even human, am I racist? Some fires burn without a physical flame, am I cold if I say I just dont care.
Some fires burn without a physical flame, am I cold if I say I just dont care.
The man who won't extinguish a fire, is the one who is eventually burned by it.
> Some fires burn without a physical flame, am I cold if I say I just dont care.
The man who won't extinguish a fire, is the one who is eventually burned by it.
What about women?
What about women?
What about women?
Shame them.
But before you do, discipline yourselves.
> What about women?
Shame them.
But before you do, discipline yourselves.
2 and 5 are the only two possible solutions with potentially positive results this scenario.
Unfortunately, both require mass financial backing.
And the financial and banking world are controlled by kikes.
Edit: I meant 2 and 5
2 and 5 are the only two possible solutions with potentially positive results this scenario.
Unfortunately, both require mass financial backing.
And the financial and banking world are controlled by kikes.
Edit: I meant 2 and 5
None of these have positive results, and massive financial backing isn't a prerequisite to any of these. It's more like what is going to happen regardless of what you want. Assuming outcomes is a mistake. All five options will be pursued by citizens and elements of the u.s. government. This isn't five scenarios. It's actually just one: a description of the future, and events you will hear about as the u.s. goes through hyperinflation.
None of these have positive results, and massive financial backing isn't a prerequisite to any of these.
It's more like *what is going to happen regardless of what you want*.
Assuming *outcomes* is a mistake. All five options will be pursued by citizens and elements of the u.s. government.
This isn't five scenarios. It's actually just one: a description of the future, and events you will hear about as the u.s. goes through hyperinflation.
You are living in a one party police state. These are your options:
This isn't five scenarios
Come on, now. Giving a choice creates a scenario for each path taken.
>You are living in a one party police state.
These are your options:
>This isn't five scenarios
Come on, now. Giving a choice creates a scenario for each path taken.
Giving a choice creates a scenario for each path taken.
You are being given the illusion of a choice is what I am trying to tell you.
This is the west committing suicide.
> Giving a choice creates a scenario for each path taken.
You are being given the *illusion* of a choice is what I am trying to tell you.
This is the west committing *suicide*.
(post is archived)