These are you options. Choose wisely. | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (38).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

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.

parent
link