Sign into an existing account

I mostly took offense at the characterization of UpperCase as being feds. To be fair, I only do it this way because the site won’t let me use a space, but whatever. As for the rest, I’m not entirely sure what you mean. I’m a hardliner—always have been, even if I’m not vocal about it. As such, I feel that we don’t need to compromise our positions in order to gain power or support. We don’t, for example, need to support ‘the Palestinians” simply because they currently oppose the jews. I feel that our message needs to be extremely focused and without internal contradiction to provide a true alternative to any of the positions presented by the ZOG.

For example, where the GOP is entirely (and purposely) wishy-washy on its political positions, we should be utterly rigid and refuse to shy away from what we know to be objectively true. Moreover, where they’re all about pork-bellies and rider content, we should be extremely lean. Yes, “Palestinians are against jews” is roughly true, and yes, “being against jews” is our position. So it might seem that “supporting a group against the jews” would be useful to us. However, Palestinians aren’t white. They’re not of us, and so their actions are operationally irrelevant to us unless directed at us. Where the GOP would demand people perpetually send tens of billions of dollars to anyone, anywhere on Earth, we should refuse to send anything to anyone, anywhere. We matter more to ourselves than others, and we need to show that by putting ourselves not just first, but exclusively.

In short, I’ve had the most success with converting others’ viewpoints by abjectly refusing to “play the game” they expect from other sources of information. Stepping completely outside the false dichotomy makes people 1. Remember you, because your ideas are truly fresh, 2. Think about what you’re saying, perhaps for the first time in their lives, and 3. Think about what other sources are saying in comparison (perhaps for the first time again).