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

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

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).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

"radical socialist militias"

Actually its a win on all sides.

Antifa wants to be seen as legitimate. Being considered a militia, despite a huge negative for them, at least baits them with the idea of legitimacy.

Second if the trend were to take off, they may see it as an opportunity to undermine the idea of militias.

More importantly the act of them taking up under the label of "militia" makes anything the government does to suppress or aid them, a constitutional issue. The right is then forced into a position of siding with the idea of militias, or siding with the federal government.

This leaves room for all of us that have left the GOP tent. The moderates, the conservatives, will play hands off.

Those dissatisfied ith the GOPs master-dog relationship to the DNC, will see, like the proud boys did, the lefts new actions as a challenge. So we'll get right wing militias forming and in the street too.

The federal government, the occupation, will be forced, either to keep the peace, because all sides will be armed, and thus alienate the last of its supporters. Or it will be forced to suppress the right, and alienate it further, destabilizing the moderate and conservatives sentiments, and driving the public to further polarization.

The opposing sides will escalate or rip each other to pieces if the government mismanages the issue. And they will, because they need the distraction. Thats on the occupation anyway, because sooner or later they'll bait the public into doing just that. We're only accelerating the process. Acceleration doesn't demand violence or lawlessness at all. Follow the law, stay peaceful, and bait the occupation into accelerating and making mistakes that lead to loss of control over the national narrative and sentiment.

At that point both the left and the occupation will double down and cement the (correct) belief among the alienated moderates and the demonized conservatives, that the occupation is at war with them and now no longer represents or responds to them at all. It's lose lose no matter what the occupation does.

Conservatives, moderates, libertarians, all need to understand and feel like they have been backed into a corner, and that none of the channels for petition or redress of grievances work anymore. This is less of a propaganda move and more of making them realize this is already the case.

Once they're hopeless, there is two possible outcomes that emerge:

  1. normalization, and we lose this one.

  2. radicalization and coalescing into groups and coalitions.

Understand I am not referring to lawlessness or violence, nor even encouraging others to resort to those things. Radicalization here means the complete tuning out of any further propaganda from the occupation, a state of mind or national sentiment, however scattered, that out of a great deal of resentment, wrongs unrectified, and a general pattern of behavior by the government, evince a future that the occupation will never change by ordinary means, that issues of two-tiered justice will never be corrected, and that any attempts at compromise will merely be exploited before the occupation goes right back to what it has always done. Which is push marxism and totalitarianism. Thats what the public needs to understand and believe wholeheartedly. Radicalization is the attitude that nothing whatsoever the occupation does can ever be right, and a state of mind where nothing it does will ever again be able to deescalate the public from that point on. It is a state of being uncompromising of anything short of complete surrender, capitulation by the people in the occupation who have wronged Americans and other westerners. It is the opposite of demoralization. It is hypermoralization. Demoralization is the atomization of a people, so commisars, or other filth, can rule by decree. Hypermoralization is the collectivization of people through an idealogy-of-utter-contempt for an enemy.

Demoralization creates slaves.

Hypermoralization creates zealots.

Slaves are created through fear.

Zealots are created through abandonment.

A zealot is the equivalent of a political child. You know those memes? "The childs guide to politics? Everything I dont like is xyz"? Well, a zealot is politically equivalent to a child. Not exactly.

They're a political child soldier.

They're angry. They don't exactly know why. Maybe they have a few clear grievances they can name, but theres a broader theme to all of the outrages if you look at them collectively, they just can't articulate it clearly. And like the one man who once shouted "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it", they don't know which authority to be mad at, but they are willing, to the point of imprisonment and bodily harm to stand in front of them and spit in that authorities eye.

You create zealots through making them understand they have been abandoned. Just like child soldiers. You make them understand they've been abandoned. And then you point them at the people responsible.