Ostensibly, you are correct.
If we wanted to do an analysis, we could write down all of our offensive and defensive strategies and options. We could do the same for all of our enemies as well. Out of that you can start to do some analytics, categorize and assign values such as effectiveness.
Indeed, threatening peoples jobs and well being is one such strategy. They have many and on top of that our governments have hired behavioral psychologists that know how to manipulate us and then use metrics to track their progress.
Where these conversations get boring and glownigger is when people suggest there is only one option. A military commander doesn't have a strategy book with one page on it. Wars are fought in multiple dimensions and physical altercation is ALWAYS a last resort or a first resort if you have an opening to utterly remove your enemy from existence. Everything in between is completely uncertain.
To add to that point, we really have not achieved any level of sophistication in terms of analysis here. For example, if we are looking to start analysis of the problem, you really need to start considering all possible categories in which wars are fought, not just physical:
- economics
- evolutionary psychology
- history
- law
- power
- mythology
- religion
- media
- social structures
... and on and on. Those are all separate war fronts with their own special skills and tactical requirements.
Anyone with even the tiniest bit of knowledge and perspective knows that you avoid phsyical options at all costs, because the price is too high and reward is very low. For example, the yellow vests in France put up a damn good fight. A bunch of them lost eyes, lost hands, ended up in jail, and so forth. But, they did not win because a physical protest in France is an all or nothing situation as they don't have support in the bureaucracy. In Portland and NYC however, pantifa faggots are allowed (even encouraged) to put on their little soy shows of protest not because they have any power at all but because the bureaucracies in those regions use them as their brown shirts to exert soft extrajudicial power.
The amount of low hanging fruit and amount of options available to us is vast. Because the discussion here is basically garbage tier low level nonsense, we talk our selves in circles about war this and war that when the reality is that we can just start taking over political institutions to get some big wins.
And this is why we keep on losing. People here are mostly stuck thinking that we are going to win when that one might saviour comes and leads us to victory. This is pure idiocy. Most wars are fought through an attrition of a thousand tiny scars with occasional opportunities for a big break move. We just watched this with the left. They have been veeeeeeeery slowly maneuvering into place everywhere and now they control everything. We found out too late, voted Trump in and they just said no and placed their guy in illegally.
Anyone that talks about violence as the only option really has no fucking clue. This is why we got outmaneuvered by communists and a tiny group of jews.
I encourage everyone to start thinking strategically.
Edit: you do make an even-handed argument that there is a vast spectrum of options between peaceful and non-peaceful means.
when the reality is that we can just start taking over political institutions to get some big wins.
I actually thought this was an option for a while. Start off by taking over low level political offices.
After seeing the "school board takeovers" and how the teachers unions, an arm of the state, will just do what they want. And the walk-back by the judicial branch its pretty clear at this point why that won't work.
Essentially if all this is is looting, then any of the "wins" we have now are just low level battles being given to us because the state doesn't care anymore, because they already know the conflict is over before it could begin.
We're not winning "territory", they're giving up territory. It's either to exhaust us with false hope, or its because they got what they wanted anyway (total control in all the key positions), and now this is just them running up the score.
They know its over. We know its over. The only question is "what' is over, and what the consequences of it will be on a national scale.
As someone said, the "soft" reset plan has been withdrawn.
I think they are planning on a hard reset.
The federal government, and western governments are planning on starting mass conflicts or pandemic to kills hundreds of millions of people.
Maybe I've lost touch with reality, but I don't think, taking a 40k foot perspective, that they can even control the situation on the ground here in the u.s. without an absolute dictatorship to enforce order. So they'll just kill millions of people instead.
And thats the reason faceberg and all the other paper billionaires are buying island bunkers.
Edit: your post was really excellent and I wish I could offer you more than the same old shitposts as a thank you. But I know when I'm dealing with someone who actually knows their stuff, and all I can say is thanks.
Okay, now we are cooking.
THIS is the kind of insight I would like to see more of. Awesome. So here is my thought on your perspective:
1) You may indeed be right and we may have lost long ago. I am not claiming that I have huge amounts of valuable analysis and metrics to offer, I have done enough analysis to categorize all offensive and defensive options and noticed that we are NOT doing any of them.
You may well be right.
2) However, I am not sure if you have ever worked in hardcore sales, like door to door sales or used car sales. Every sales person eventually learns that we have a winning circuitry in our brain and loser circuitry in our brain. And every sales person knows that you can engage one or the other. If you engage the loser brain circuitry you will only see negative imagery, negative options and everything is losing all the time. If you engage the winning circuitry you will only see positive things and and infinite options.
My contention is that there are evolutionary reasons that both exist and you cannot have a civilization of optimists, this is a nonsense idea. I believe that the negative circuitry exists as an evolutionary safety button to preserve energy because optimists spend all their energy chasing stars and mostly failing. The pessimists don't have to do anything except wait for optimists to find the solution at which point they act.
I am able to engage my win circuitry. I'm nowhere near the Trump level performer and I occasionally let it lapse and the loser circuitry kicks in. But for the most part, I only see opportunity and chance. I am only hoping some of it rubs off on others for now.
Anyone with even the tiniest bit of knowledge and perspective knows that you avoid physical options at all costs,
This is what I keep repeating to people hoping they grasp it, but the more I talk to people in places like the supermarket and online, the more wild and woolly and angry people seem to be.
You and I can suggest peace till the sun comes up, but I don't think its gonna do any good.
Eventually you just gotta punch a bully straight in the mouth and everyone knows it. And the federal government, left, journalism, courts, and wallstreet are the bully. And the GOP are the crony leftwing school teachers going after people for standing up for themselves or others.
We'll all be on poal just watching from the sidelines, but
Fights brewing.
I don't disagree that something might pop, for sure.
Federal government is running the narrative too hot.
The "giving ground" message such as courts giving us wins, isn't cooling the situation.
It's fueling it.
I wrote this a while back hoping some glowies would maybe, for once, on a sheer run of good luck, read something here, and realize the same thing and recommend against the current course.
I said it. I said if they let up, at all, it'll encourage our side to lawlessness, and like a pressure cooker, it wont be a situation they can control. It'll be like taking the lid off pandoras box.
They're inviting our opponents on the international stage to steal homeruns because if they keep on the present course, I see shit devolving into armed conflict in the u.s. and in europe.
I mean I guess I'm sort of relieved that its all over except seeing the country burn, its a strange sort of schadenfreude. And I can see why it wasnt just needed, but always going to play out this way.
I forget who said it, but maybe happiness is really just learning to accept the inevitable.
To add to this point, you know sure someone will eventually lose their mind.
But, if we had a semblance of a white race or a white culture or a white anything and we could gather our people together, imagine half the country just going on a silent sit-in strike?
No violence necesssary. Just stop going to work, stop paying for everything. But a ton of rice and go outside your house with a chair or whatever and just gather and do a silent sit-in.
White people could take their countries back almost immediately.
They couldn't put everyone in jail. They couldn't kill everyone. They couldn't foreclose on everyone because everyone at once, especially if most of the white people inthose banks are in the protest.
What if white people started taking money out of banks in a co-ordinated way and rotated that around the country?
You just helped me realize the other problem our people have: WHITE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO NEGOTIATE.
In a negotiation you have to key skills:
You understand that everything is just a trade of one thing for another.
You walk into the trade knowing your strengths and weaknesses.
All successful trades require that a person look at the world through those two filters. In fact, you apply those two filters to your day to day conversations, you will IMMEDIATELY notice a huge difference in the kinds of conversation you have and where they lead. Seriously, those two things are powerful filters.
Anyway, I just realized that all of the conversation here about war comes from a people that probably (?) don't have much experience with negotiation. Virtually all comments that I have read thus far (except for the one person in another thread that worked in sales) doesn't seem to understand just how much power they really have.
We do have tremendous negotation power. We need to start teaching people how to use it.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, iterate options, and keep morale up.
My assessment is the white identity option is a losing angle not because there aren't people questioning the "white bad, black saintly!" narrative. The problem is the talented tenth fuck up any sort of counter-messaging. If anything the banks are afraid of any sort of black-left + white-right unity, thats how I see it. Not that that is ultimately a winning move. Only that the pentagon still has occasional bad dreams about occupy before the race-division strategy they magnified in 2008.
Also, it loses us the veterans, which will be needed in any mass strategy, peaceful or not. Without which, there is no win.
Theres no getting around that if you even want the chance of keeping things peaceful.
What if white people started taking money out of banks
Narrative control by the media always allows them to divert from this issue, demotive, or reframe in a way that destroys any momentum or movement they want. It is the eye of sauron as it were.
So its an issue of whats the bigger issue, and the bottleneck is the media. Every time.
Nothing gets done with the media in the way unless an order of magnitude more effort is put into it that wouldn't otherwise be needed.
We do have tremendous negotiation power. We need to start teaching people how to use it.
I think that is an absolutely excellent angle. How do we frame it as part mission, part process, part
particular cause, and particular goal?
People need something to work towards before they except accept political processes.
Thats why we have political dogfights. The purpose is to get people to vote at all, and "buy in" to accepting
the outcome and all that entails.
And voting, giving consent, is a process.
Same thing here.
Negotiating is a process. Thats what we want people to do. How do we bring them to the table. Whats the cause? Whats the fight here?
I could say "mandates" or "masks" but thats a given. What demographic, what jobs to focus on, what segments. How do we reach them. Who do we reach them through.
Middle-aged women (40s up) on twitter unironically have a pretty big influence but they're mostly stuck in the trump-told-me-to-sit-on-my-hands-and-trust-the-plan complacency funnel.
(post is archived)