Here's how a "popular front" basically works for a small amount of extremists to take power democratically, then destroy the constitutional institutions that brought them to power.
1) Intimidate a weak leader's political support base through prolonged militant, violent actions
2) Infiltrate the weak leader's decisionmaking and fundraising circles.
3) Cut secret deals to "help" the weak leader get elected by having him agree to place extremist cadre in sensitive government posts once he's in office.
4) The best target is a weak leader who has lots his wits out of cowardice, or is losing his mind from senility or fear.
5) Bring in your broad, hard-core activist cadre to rally behind the weak "moderate." This is the "people's front" or "popular front" to take power.
6) Prevent significant left-wing elements from running a third-party candidate who would siphon off votes from the weak leader who is being co-opted.
7) Extreme Left rivals in or around the weak leader's party should support the weak leader or at least stay silent.
8) All elements of the "popular front" campaign together even though they don't like the leader. Disciplined cadre and groupthinking non-playing characters (NPCs) go along to be part of the movement.
This is why a "Manchurian Candidate" is so important, with cadre in place, to replace the unpopular or weak leader.
9) The most militant will commit mass acts of intimidation and other violence to terrorize the political mainstream into further silence and thus "mainstream the extremism." The Overton Window is moved make extremism normal.
10) Militants seek to provoke the target government or incumbent leader into over-reacting to the extremism, and goad it into using excessive force or violence. The goal is to turn normal elements of the population against the government and have them vote for the Popular Front.
11) Smart national leadership will not take the bait, and will let the extremists run their course and inadvertently alienate the broad center from the weak leader of the Popular Front.
12) Militants will continue to provoke, intimidate, and terrorize.
13) More extremist cadre will rally to the weak leader, and expand the volunteer activist cadre of the Popular Front, bring aboard more alienated constituent groups to join.
14) The targeted leaders will be portrayed in the most dehumanizing, hated terms to polarize voters.
15) Militants will propose solutions to manipulate balloting and vote-counting, bringing "moderates" with them. They will rely on organizations they can influence and control, such as postal worker unions and urban political machines.
16) Foreign-inspired crises will be blamed on the targeted government leadership. Rather than rallying the nation to solve a severe humanitarian crisis, the Popular Front will polarize society and shut down as much of normal life as possible to create more anger and chaos.
17) If the Popular Front is elected through legitimate votes or fraud, the militant cadre will move quickly to demand key posts on the transition team and in the new government.
18) Those government posts will include control of law enforcement, counterintelligence, courts, social services, and other sources of cash and resources to reward allies and punish opponents.
19) The militant cadre inside the weak leader's circle, and their grassroots allies nationwide, will make increasing demands on the weak leader.
20) They will also force the weak leader to purge out his loyal advisers and other trusted personnel.
21) Well before this time, of course, the militants will have forced the weak leader to select one of their own strong and popular people to serve as the weak leader's successor.
22) By the time the weak leader is president, he will be a hollow shell inhabited, like a hermit crab, by the militant cadre that will increasingly agitate to purge out more of the mainstream people around the weak leader.
23 The weak leader will be thoroughly coopted or ousted.
24) The revolution will eat its own.
25) The political moderates, having gone along with the Popular Front, will try to sit it out but will inevitably be purged.
26) Counterrevolution begins.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If Senate Republicans don't confirm Matt Gaetz as attorney general & Kash Patel as FBI director, President Trump should sign an executive order to dissolve the FBI by rescinding the July 26, 1908 order that the FBI calls its founding document.
The FBI cannot be reformed. We need better, more effective federal law enforcement and counterintelligence than the FBI provides - and one free of the taint of decades of abuses. Only Gaetz & Patel can do that. Here's how the process might look.
Grok, Perplexity, and ChatGPT can't find a law that established the FBI. When you ask ChatGPT for the law, it gives the 1908 attorney general memorandum, saying "the FBI was formed through an executive order rather than a specific law."
🧵 Destruction of federal records outside the confines of the Federal Records Act (FRA) is a crime.
That destruction is going on right now.
To report report unauthorized disposition, email UnauthorizedDisposition@nara.gov.
The FRA has not been enforced anywhere in the federal government over the last 16+ years. archives.gov/news/topics/fe…
2) Any federal employee altering or destroying a federal record, prior to meeting its appropriate National Archives & Records Administratin (NARA)-approved retention period, after November 5th should be caught and prosecuted for violating the Federal Records Act.
Each agency's Senior Agency Official for Records Management and Agency Records Officers must also be held legally responsible.
Trump47 should remove & replace failed NARA leadership and comprehensively reform the government's records management system.
4 years ago today: @Politico breaks false story of the 51 intelligence and national security former officials saying Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. politico.com/news/2020/10/1…
NY Post contacted many of the Spies Who Lied to get a response. Here's the list, directly quoted from @nypost:
Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didn’t respond.
Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit: “Yes, I stand by the statement made AT THE TIME, and would call attention to its 5th paragraph. I think sounding such a cautionary note AT THE TIME was appropriate.”
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary, now runs a public policy institute at California State University: Declined comment.
John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University: Didn’t respond.
Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank: Didn’t respond.
John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University: Didn’t respond.
Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University: Didn’t respond.
Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems: Didn’t respond.
Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico: Didn’t respond.
Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism: Didn’t respond.
Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director: “The letter explicitly stated that we didn’t know if the emails were genuine, but that we were concerned about Russian disinformation efforts. I spent 25 years as a Soviet/Russian analyst. Given the context of what the Russians were doing at the time (and continue to do — Ukraine being just the latest example), I considered the cautionary warning to be prudent.”
Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director: “As far as I know I do [stand by the statement] but I’m kind of busy right now.”
John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.
Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group: Didn’t respond.
Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.
Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.
Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel: Didn’t respond.
David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager: “Thank you for reaching out. I have no further comment at this time.”
Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis: Didn’t respond.
Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Kristin Wood, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard: Didn’t respond.
David Buckley, former CIA inspector general: Didn’t respond.
Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and targeting officer, now senior fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute: Didn’t respond.
Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence office: Didn’t respond.
David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst: Didn’t respond.
Janice Cariens, former CIA operational support officer: Didn’t respond.
Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst: Didn’t respond.
Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Roger Zane George, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Steven L. Hall, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.
Don Hepburn, former national security executive, now president of Boanerges Solutions LLC: “My position has not changed any. I believe the Russians made a huge effort to alter the course of the election . . . The Russians are masters of blending truth and fiction and making something feel incredibly real when it’s not. Nothing I have seen really changes my opinion. I can’t tell you what part is real and what part is fake, but the thesis still stands for me, that it was a media influence hit job.”
Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis: Didn’t respond.
Ron Marks, former CIA officer: Didn’t respond.
Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the International Spy Museum: “I don’t have any comment. I would need a little more information.”
Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIA’s Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, now at University of New Mexico: “I have not seen any information since then that would alter the decision behind signing the letter. That’s all I can go into. The whole issue was highly politicized and I don’t want to deal with that. I still stand by that letter.”
Gerald A. O’Shea, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.
Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the director: Didn’t respond.
John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer [and former advisory board member of @ProjectLincoln, which was co-founded by a registered agent of Russia]: Declined to comment.
Stephen Slick, former National Security Council senior director for intelligence programs:
Didn’t respond.
Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for global issues: Didn’t respond.
Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy executive director: Didn’t respond.
David Terry, former National Intelligence Collection Board chairman: Couldn’t be reached.
Greg Treverton, former National Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “I’ll pass. I haven’t followed the case recently.”
Winston Wiley, former CIA director of analysis: Couldn’t be reached.
After Wray does not answer, @RepClayHiggins said, “It should be a ‘no.’ Can you not tell the American people, ‘No, we did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol on January 6?’”
One year has past since Higgins last put the simple “yes” or “no” question to FBI Director Wray.
“Still don’t have a definitive answer from you,” Higgins says. “We can’t get a straight answer.”
Wray then re-worded Rep. Higgins’ question to say something Higgins never said, and covered himself by denying his own invented question.
Wray: “If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of domestic violence operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents, the answer is emphatically not. No. Not violence orchestrated by FBI sources or agents.”
Of course, that was not Higgins’ question. Higgins didn’t ask about violence. Wray made up his own straw-man question so he could knock it down.
🧵In 2005, the bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, co-chaired by Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, expressed concerns about electronic voting systems.
2) Carter-Baker report, pp. 25-27: Voting machines lack transparency.
“Voting machines must … be transparent. They must allow for recounts and for audits, and thereby giver voters confidence in the accuracy of the vote tallies.”
“The accessibility and accuracy of DREs [direct recording electronic machines], however, are offset by a lack of transparency, which has raised concerns about security and verifiability. In most of the DREs used in 2004, voters could not check that their ballot was recorded correctly. Some DREs had no capacity for an independent recount.”
3) Carter-Baker report, p. 27 says there are no standards of transparency for voting machines (and, by implication, software):
"The standards for voting systems ... should assure ... transparency in all voting machines. Because these standards usually guide the decisions of voting machine manufacturers, the manufacturers should be encouraged to build machines in the future that are both accessible and transparent ….”
In a 62-page ruling, a federal magistrate judge agrees with @dominionvoting and sacks attorney Stefanie Lambert from defending @PatrickByrne from Dominion.
Case 1:21-cv-02131-CJN-MAU.
The judge is with the squeaky-clean US District Court for the District of Columbia.
What is in the emails being produced in discovery that Dominion wants to keep secret?
@dominionvoting @PatrickByrne Download the 62-page PDF of the court decision siding with Dominion to sack Patrick Byrne's attorney, Stefanie Lambert.
I have posted this on my Academia account in the public interest so that people may download it for free. I am not party to this case. academia.edu/122888005/DOMI…
What is in those Dominion emails that is so damning that the company is pulling out all the stops to prevent their disclosure?
Could it have to do with @Smartmatic? Could it be related to election fraud? Did someone at Dominion commit a crime? What do you have to say, @dominionvoting?