Over
here u/Endo_Aryan writes: "the junta" is a great description of DC.
And I want to explain why, because I think it is important that everyone starts using this sort of label for DC and the federal occupation. This isn't gonna be a short post, but stay with it because you might find something useful in it.
Basically:
Change the language, change the perception. Change the perception you change the sentiment.
Change the sentiment and you make people much easier to polarize.
People must be made to understand it, because it is true: it's a junta, a regime, a third-rate third-world pseudo-militant occupation that is only (slightly) restraining its lawlessness and violence (for now). The kinds of words you see used to describe overbearing dictatorships in movies or television, thats what you want to use. The mental script is already there. It's getting people to see, getting them into the right frame of mind, that is the difficult phase.
Degrade the behavior of DC to what it is and has been: which is
1. loose cannon secret police running
rampant ("death squads"),
2. "secret prisons" for political dissidents, or "torture camps" if you want to go for hyperbole. Always claim "the regime" has "denied the use of torture camps for political detainees." because it puts words in their mouth. You and I both know they'll never deny it, especially with that language, because then it brings attention to the very idea. The stories they want to kill they just outright ignore. So if we can't get a story in the news, the next best thing is to write "the regime recently denied the use of torture camps for political detainees."
3. prisoners should be called "political detainees", because it deemphasizes "prisoners". This is because the regime uses that term to raise a legitimate question of whether or not its detainees
are criminals. It adds an air of legitimacy. In order to delegitimize the federal occupation, call them political detainees. The interpretation makes it clear: they're being
detained or
interned for questioning the regime.
4. All 'intelligence' agencies are now "political police", or "secret police", though the former term has got better traction. The more partisan they appear the less legitimate they are, the more the public becomes
alienated from DC's authorities or diktats. And speaking of which
5. laws should be called policies. Policies should be called 'mandates'. Mandates should be called 'diktats'. Because what do dictatorships do? They issue diktats.
6. "Distant washington" or "insulated DC" when you're not referring to it as "the junta."
This is to drive the alienation further and is a more tame line for the moderates to latch onto
7. "commissioners of the the whitehouse junta."
This is an experimental phrase I've been meaning to try out. The thinking is 'commissioner' is a 'small' very individualized word yeah? You probably think of "police commissioner" or "city commissioner" when you see it. It also makes them seem more distant, personal, and less powerful. The current problem with talking about "the government" is that it's an abstraction, and that abstraction makes it hard to challenge. But by using this phrase or word, it puts the focus and emphasis on the real unelected: the individual bureaucrats. People start asking "
what commissioner?", and "who? whats their name?"
A headline that reads "DC junta authorities arrest new wave of J6 prisoners", reads different than "DC junta commissioner MURIEL BOWSER vanishes more political detainees related to J6."
People know WHO to attribute their fear to. But we also know, that eventually fear turns to anger. And if the target of that anger is an abstraction like 'the government' or 'authorities' thats too big for people to do anything about, then they won't. But make it a specific person, and now they know who to boycott, sanction, divest from, who to picket, who to follow in public with 24/7 protests, who to name when they pressure their reps or decide to hire lawyers.
SUMMARY
You gotta focus that rage coming from the public, focus it like a laser beam till it annihilates the careers of anyone that works for the regime. And the fuel for that anger is naming names, and putting a face to the public's fear, and using
the correct labels. Because what the occupation is currently engaged in, with the mass infiltration of political movements, the mass policing, the mass censorship, the mass arrests--what they're engaging in is what we used to attribute to real life dictatorships. And what they've been doing is the definition of real life terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation for political ends.
Lets all start calling a dictatorship what it is.
