As you review this brazenly 'open communications' manual directed at planned violence inside America, against Americans, et al, it really becomes paramount that concerned citizens become self-aware that these hostile actors - in escalating levels of violence possibly designed to culminate in May and sustain through the election cycle - are PERMITTED, ALLOWED & FACILITATED to attack and disrupt American citizens inside the United States on behalf of foreign players by OUR (YOUR) leaders.
If you're not up to asking these types of questions, you may want to consider whether you're serious enough to ask them or, alternatively, whether you're a poser.
static1.squarespace.com/static/6374172…
If you're not up to asking these types of questions, you may want to consider whether you're serious enough to ask them or, alternatively, whether you're a poser.
static1.squarespace.com/static/6374172…
2) Alongside the "X" capable link "direct action" plan posted above, there is also this 53-page PDF, of which the first three pages are below.
Now, class, let's review what "direct action" means when Marxists execute a political warfare activity against the population (and elected leaders to allow it).
Why is this permitted against the citizenry?
Now, class, let's review what "direct action" means when Marxists execute a political warfare activity against the population (and elected leaders to allow it).
Why is this permitted against the citizenry?
3) It occurs to me that some may not understand the phrase "open communications." As used here, when an opposition openly communicates his C3 (command, control & communications in the open, he does so b/c the assessment's been made that they have achieved a level of information supremacy that they can do so KNOWING that those communications are protected.
Making such a determination is part of any assessment that sometimes must be explicit because it's so obvious that people can just skip past it and then fail to account for its consequences when assessing where we may be in the revolutionary cycle (aka on the insurgency pyramid). i.e., that such communications are openly permitted by the powers that be even as they are a direct assault on Title 18.
Making such a determination is part of any assessment that sometimes must be explicit because it's so obvious that people can just skip past it and then fail to account for its consequences when assessing where we may be in the revolutionary cycle (aka on the insurgency pyramid). i.e., that such communications are openly permitted by the powers that be even as they are a direct assault on Title 18.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
