Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

Think about it.

"Militia" is a word that the propaganda of the regime has primed the public to respond to in a certain way.

The very idea of them being organized damages them, because once percieved as organized, guess what? Some actors at the federal level are forced to either spend political capital explaining why they're doing nothing about the org, or go after them.

Thats why they were so adamant about being portrayed as a "loose movement" and "abstract political ideology" and other buzzwords. Because once the enemy is identities, it gives the opposition (us) something and someone to push against. And then it forces their enablers in the GOP, working for the DNC regime, to punt, and either do something, or lose more credibility. Rock meet hard place.

If we want them to do anything, the trick is to force them to play ball or reveal the game they're playing. And when the occupation is forced to pretend-fight itself and nothing happens, it is forced to lose more credibility with the public. It destabilizes the regime.

So call them what they are, to implicitly highlight the contradiction between how the state persecutes moderate, libertarian, and conservative americans, versus how the state enables and refuses to go after the goons, rats, and virtue-signalling psychos that support it.

Call them what they are:

"A militia."

yes its demonizing the term, but the term is already horribly demonzied. And the practice itself is infiltrated, shutdown, suppressed, and manipulated anyway. Doesn't serve us anymore.

So push through the negate long and hard enough into its opposite.

Antifa/BLM are a "radical fascist militia".

It will also alienate people on the fence, who are taken in by the big lie that they're "anti-fascist because its in the name!"

Counter the big lie with big truth.

Better yet.

Call them radical rightwing militias.

Watch this be massively amplified by their attempt to overcorrect, combine with the bizareness of the accusation.

Do not make the enemy merely follow their own rules. Make them follow the rules they force on us. And do not make the enemy adhere to the labels they attribute to all of us to demonize us.

No. Make the enemy adhere to the same labels.

This way every time they try to gimp us. Every time they try to demonize us. They cut their noses to spite their faces.

The left are a "radical left/rightwing socialist/bolshevik militia".

If at all possible, use that phrase frequently, and vehemently.

And what they are accused of, they will either cease doing, or it will cause them to double down and lose the middle even further, which will also force those on the fence to choose between sides.

Don't polarize the public. Force the enemy into a position where their own actions do it for you.

Meanwhile we should be using the very same language they use to describe themselves: "a set of ideologies", "common ideals", "coalitions", "loose affiliation", "loose movement scattered across the nation".

Think about it. "Militia" is a word that the propaganda of the regime has primed the public to respond to in a certain way. The very idea of them being organized damages them, because once percieved as organized, guess what? Some actors at the federal level are forced to either spend political capital explaining why they're doing nothing about the org, or go after them. Thats why they were so adamant about being portrayed as a "loose movement" and "abstract political ideology" and other buzzwords. Because once the enemy is identities, it gives the opposition (us) something and someone to push against. And then it forces their enablers in the GOP, working for the DNC regime, to punt, and either do something, or lose more credibility. Rock meet hard place. If we want them to do anything, the trick is to force them to play ball or reveal the game they're playing. And when the occupation is forced to pretend-fight itself and nothing happens, it is forced to lose more credibility with the public. It destabilizes the regime. So call them what they are, to implicitly highlight the contradiction between how the state persecutes moderate, libertarian, and conservative americans, versus how the state enables and refuses to go after the goons, rats, and virtue-signalling psychos that support it. Call them what they are: "A militia." yes its demonizing the term, but the term is *already* horribly demonzied. And the practice itself is infiltrated, shutdown, suppressed, and manipulated anyway. Doesn't serve us anymore. So push through the negate long and hard enough into its opposite. Antifa/BLM are a "radical fascist militia". It will also alienate people on the fence, who are taken in by the big lie that they're "anti-fascist because its in the name!" Counter the big lie with big truth. Better yet. Call them radical *rightwing* militias. Watch this be massively amplified by their attempt to overcorrect, combine with the bizareness of the accusation. Do not make the enemy merely follow their *own* rules. Make them follow the rules they force on *us*. And do not make the enemy adhere to the labels they attribute to all of us to demonize us. No. Make the enemy adhere to *the same labels*. This way every time they try to gimp us. Every time they try to demonize us. They cut their noses to spite their faces. The left are a "radical left/rightwing socialist/bolshevik militia". If at all possible, use that phrase frequently, and vehemently. And what they are accused of, they will either cease doing, or it will cause them to double down and lose the middle even further, which will also force those on the fence to choose between sides. Don't polarize the public. Force the enemy into a position where their own actions do it for you. Meanwhile we should be using the very same language they use to describe themselves: "a set of ideologies", "common ideals", "coalitions", "loose affiliation", "loose movement scattered across the nation".

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I think taking the Streisand angle was smart.

Yeah but streissand being "unintentional" is just the proto-meme of "gone viral".

If you're seeing it spread, you have to ask if the spread is organic or not.

And also more generally you have to ask, if the slogan/trend is just a holding action we were given by the state, an empty-feel good measure, or ushering us back onto the left-right plantation.

If you can accurately answer yes to the first, and no to the others, then it helps us. But if we don't know the answer, the question remains: who benefits?

Everything that happens in politics is bumper sticker idealogy, sure. But most of what happens is also astroturf, and if we don't see that in any specific example right from the get go, its because ultimately it either sets us back or is accomplishing something at our expense.

What we should asking then is not "is lets go brandon/lgb/etc worth amplifying?" Again, because theres always either the redirection, or momentum-kill.

Instead we should be asking what comes after that? Whats the next thing that grows, or keeps the momentum? Or much better, what is the next thing, the next idea, slogan, or meme, that builds on the lasts focus and momentum?

The "fuck joe biden!" attitude, like all FUs, worked because a fuck-you attitude, when all else fails, is a decent gambit that cuts through rampant bullshit like a hot knife. When nothing else works, "fuck you!" says what needs to be said. And instead we've been elided into mockery, which is good, but from there just slides into the left-right-gotcha game of politics-as-usual. Thats polarization, but its also winning the battle and losing the war, which is the opposite of polarization. And the more we return to that cycle, the more existing circumstances will normalize instead of accelerating.

Remember government power is a one way ratchet, so you can't stop it, slow it, and just return to normal. Thats not gonna happen. So the only way to undo the ratchet is to break it. How? By forcing the regime to overdo it as fast as possible and provoke the public noncompliance. We're about 10-15% there, in terms of numbers and the right attitude. It'll accelerate from here if everything stays the same and only gets worse.

Edit: Underestimating-through-mockery is also good, because it tends to provoke the other side. And when they're acting on impulse, they're making mistakes.

[–] • 0 pt

If you can accurately answer yes to the first, and no to the others, then it helps us. But if we don't know the answer, the question remains: who benefits?

I don't mind spinning on the go. There's no reason to limit yourself. Adaptability is of huge importance in memetics.

The "fuck joe biden!" attitude, like all FUs, worked because a fuck-you attitude, when all else fails, is a decent gambit that cuts through rampant bullshit like a hot knife. When nothing else works, "fuck you!" says what needs to be said. And instead we've been elided into mockery, which is good, but from there just slides into the left-right-gotcha game of politics-as-usual. Thats polarization, but its also winning the battle and losing the war, which is the opposite of polarization. And the more we return to that cycle, the more existing circumstances will normalize instead of accelerating.

I like what you said here, but I think you're zoomed too far out. The reason "let's go brandon!" works is because it it is censorship-proof (until it isn't, I guess...). At present, the only things with staying power are these kinds of memetic forces which drive adoption; mockery/humor being the present example. Without this benefit, the picture you've painted could come in to the fold, but once you remember that they can just stifle whatever dissent they perceive, it becomes clear that there are iterative steps that are important to keep in mind. So, I guess what I'm objecting to is that we can lose the war by "losing the battle of maintaining the original slogan that invoked a different stance/meaning". I think evading the censorship façade is enough of a win at this point. Keep in mind - the proles are a bunch of junkies with short memories. They'll be running back to the tv/phone/computer screen for another injection of the next dopamine bait before they get distracted by much else.

Remember government power is a one way ratchet, so you can't stop it, slow it, and just return to normal. Thats not gonna happen. So the only way to undo the ratchet is to break it. How? By forcing the regime to overdo it as fast as possible and provoke the public noncompliance. We're about 10-15% there, in terms of numbers and the right attitude. It'll accelerate from here if everything stays the same and only gets worse.

Gets worse? I think people realizing the king's naked isn't a worse scenario. Maybe you think that will just provoke the ferals to do unseemly things. In which case, I'm more inclined to believe dangerous freedom is the only kind that exists. Besides, all you have to do is avoid the big cities and you don't have that problem. There's not enough people (police officers or people that work in local government) to bribe (or threaten) in the small towns. In fact, I think anyone at all that's still in a city with around six figures or more population is literally asking to live in a concrete jungle that's unsafe or shameless.

The funny thing is you've described exactly my perspective on the general political climate but we seem to disagree about things like Q (maybe Trump too, but I don't remember). But we don't have to dive back in to things we both know we disagree about. I just wanted to pause to insist there's a lot more we probably agree upon than not.

Underestimating-through-mockery is also good, because it tends to provoke the other side. And when they're acting on impulse, they're making mistakes.

kek I remember when I first realized this. I think I spent the rest of the day chuckling about how easy it is to make retards tell you something they shouldn't if you just call them a retard, a nigger or a faggot enough times.