Sign into an existing account

I don't take you at face value.


You're citing from siege, by a guy who failed to do anything. His tactics aren't strategy, which is why the follow-through fell flat. Nevermind that he used violence, which I've never agreed with and still don't.

Understand the limits of the literature you're ingesting.

Ask yourself, if siege failed, why?

That should be your starting point for developing your understanding of the national situation.

I realize mossad et al want siege as a sort of "field prepation" for creating a base to recruit from for nationalist rwds, especially if israel is gonna fight it out with china for control of the u.s., but their messaging is garbage.
Any green beret could tell you you don't try to change someone's whole opinion if you want to recruit them for anything, you meet them where they're at and figure out what motives them. If they'd actually consulted anyone that knew anything about that, like say, a green beret, the whole day-of-the-rope-zionist-sponsored-'nazis'-taking-america-back gimmick might have a single foot to stand on, a sliver of a chance. Ann Coulter told us their plan, that if the chinese marxists betrayed them, and flooded the country with a new voting block, israel would come for "the people who wrecked america".

Unironically the most militarizable set for them to exploit appears to be the boomerwaffen, over 40 crowd.
Thats unintuitive of course. People high on their own supply, reading siege, and mid-level executive consultant mckinsey types sitting in israel are used to repeating slogans like some sort of divine and hidden wisdom "beware a man who has nothing to lose", etc, the same way every mid-level executive consultant is prone to, and it really tells you all you need to know. You can't have proper or coherent public relations (read: recruiting) when you're a grifter and you haven't realized the guys writing your strategy are also grifters, who got their executive advice from the equivalent of chinese fortune cookies.

I wrote a while back that, contrary to intuition and pop-wisdom, it is not the everyman "nothing to lose" type individuals who are dangerous. It is in fact the middle class man, who has seen loss, and still has something worth holding on to, and those who think they're going to lose more. This perfectly explains the 40 and up boomerwaffen crowd, and why trump specifically rallied them, instead of taking a more generalist approach. Go back even further, and look at the demographics of the viet cong during the vietnam war. Lot of old dudes and blue collar men.

And now you begin to see, if you have any clue at all, that I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Sometimes, stiffs, and by that I mean, guys working in offices "where the indoor lighting is too bright", get the impression because I cite and suggest books that therefore thats where everything I know comes from. But the truth is much of what I've read I didn't learn about in books first, it was and is life experience. The books came later as a way to cohere, organize, define the concepts, and better understand what I had already learned.
It's not book smarts, its street smarts. I dealt with grifters, violent people, and well connected people my whole life.

You'd do better if you listened instead of talked.
Thats genuine advice, not a dig.

edit: For reading material, go check out "taking to the streets" by oxford press to better understand marxism's tactics and strategy at a street-level view (which most people are never given a good explanation of for 'some reason').
And while you're at it, if you want to understand the rail road sabotage happening, go read "the labor relations process" by william holley, especially chapter seven, starting on page 282, it clarifies a lot of recent events.