1/
The riots happening in LA are not organic or spontaneous.
They're designed to look chaotic to cover up the fact that they're well funded, exceptionally organized, and carried out by well trained activists using intelligent, highly developed tactics.
Here's a primer:
2/ First, notice the protestors have shields (pic 1)
These types of shields were used by the 2024 pro-Hamas rioters (pic 2), and 2020 BLM rioters (pic 3)
Each shield takes 3 hours to make, and activists spend all day making them (pic 4) That's not spontaneous, it takes planning
3/ Those shields are not cardboard signs. They are designed to *look* like cardboard signs.
They're in fact made of plywood and have metal handles (as seen in the pics below). They have a cardboard sign attached to the front to disguise the fact that they're made of wood.
4/ In 2020 these shields were brought in and distributed to rioters in organized drops (video 1)
In LA we see the same strategy. They hand out protective equipment to rioters (pic 2) who then use them in their attacks (pic 3).
Note the same home depot bucket in pics 2 and 3
5/ It isn't just the shields that are planned, everything is, from what rioters wear to the tactics used in each situation
They're implementing highly developed theory of protest violence in order to create pressure and try to force politicians to give in.
I'll show you...
6/ To see how this works we need to understand the TACTICS they're using.
The first strategy is to put their target in a "decision dilemma" by implementing a method of protest that leaves the person with no good options. No matter how the target reacts they look bad. beautifultrouble.org/toolbox/tool/p…
7/ That strategy is paired with: "the real action is your targets reaction," in which Rioters use people's reactions to the protests against them.
The goal here is to try to force the authorities to overreact so rioters can play martyr for the camera.
8/ The final move is "lead with sympathetic characters."
They put sympathetic people out front to garner sympathy and make them look like sympathetic underdogs fighting an uphill battle.
This is why they brought a baby to the protest. It was an INTENTIONAL pre-planned move.
9/ Putting it all together, by blocking a road using benches as barricades they give the authorities no option but to use force, but by having a baby they force the police into an impossible situation: using force without harming a baby.
It puts police in an impossible situation
10/ The principle at work behind this entire strategy is "play to the audience that isn't there" Activists pick their tactics and strategies based on *OPTICS*.
They want to make themselves look like sympathetic underdogs to the audience seeing it on youtube or watching the news
11/ All of these strategies and tactics are used to create actions which activists can turn to their advantage. When they do this correctly they can paint themselves as the sympathetic powerless underdogs even when they are the aggressors.
It's social and political jiu-jitsu
12/ That isn't to say they aren't also intentional in doing damage. They are. The book Black Bloc, White Riot: Anti-Globalization and the Genealogy of Dissent by author AK Thompson is the starting place for their theory of what counts as violence, and when violence is justified.
13/ Alex Hundert defended "a diversity of tactics" which is a euphemism for allowing violence at protests. Hundert explicitly states a commitment to non-violence is "dogmatic" and "stifles debate" about which tactics to use.
Violence is part of the strategy as we will see...
14/ Leftist academics theorized about how violence could be used to build political leverage.
Oberlin professor Jenny Garcia explains how violent protests "make it a more salient issue and provide greater pressure on elected officials and candidates"
15/ These tactics are not new.
David Graeber explains that in 2000, protestors at the Summit of the Americas had Green, Yellow, and Red zones of protest. Each color represented a level of violence allowed. Green was non-violent, Yellow was "obstructive," red was "disruptive".
16/ Just so we are clear, "obstructive" is a euphemism for blocking road, entrances, and so fourth; and "disruptive" is a euphemism for the use of violence and property damage to try to shut things down.
The use of sophisticated pre-planned violence goes back a long way...
17/ and it is backed by a set of academic theories about how violence, property damage, blockades, and so fourth can be used to put pressure on the authorities and create political leverage that can be used to extract concessions from politicians, businesses, and other groups.
18/ As @DataRepublican has shown (see her thread for details) these protest are created, funded and organized by people with large networks and resources
My goal is to explain the theoretical foundation that the rioters tactics and strategies are built on
@DataRepublican 19/
These riots implement a set of very specific tactics and theories which operate according to a theoretical foundation built by radical professors for the purpose of helping woke activists manipulate, create, and control the cultural narrative in order to get political wins.
@DataRepublican 20/
The worst thing that we can do right now is to overreact.
The entire point of these riots is to make the police, the mayor, and the other authorities to overreact. They are absolutely, 100%, baiting the police and the Trump administration into overreacting.
That's the play
@DataRepublican 21/
I know this because the book that all of these tactics comes from is called "Beautiful Trouble" and one of the Co-authors lived in my city.
He used to run activism camps and made appearances at the University I attended **while I was there**
I know these people first hand.
@DataRepublican 22/
Co-Author of Beautiful Trouble, Dave Mitchell, was the Chief of Staff to the leader of the Leftist political party in Saskatchewan while I working in the Legislature for one of the government ministers.
I am telling you I know *EXACTLY* how these tactics are used.
@DataRepublican 23/
Mitchell was arrested in a protest at the Summit of the America's in 2001, the same Summit the I mentioned earlier in which there were Red, Yellow, and Green zones.
I'm telling you from experience that they are trying to force the Trump administration to overreact...
@DataRepublican 24/
You can't win the battle here with a brutal crackdown since that only gives the protestors what they want: a chance to look like underdogs being abused by police.
Since I know the people who created the tactics, I'll tell you the strategy to beat all of these tactics...
@DataRepublican 25/
The first thing is to refuse to overreact. In the battle for optics the team that looks worst loses, and the way the police lose is by overreacting.
The second thing is to recognize that protests run on energy and momentum, so you need strategy to drains their momentum.
@DataRepublican 26/
The way to do this is two-fold:
First, begin making arrests of only the worst and most violent offenders. The goal is to get the most dangerous people of the streets while highlighting the most violent elements of the protests. That second part of VERY important.
@DataRepublican 27/
By highlighting the worst offenders you begin to build a narrative about how violent the protests are. Normal people don't like political violence, and a steady stream of announcements about the arrests of violent protestors frames the protests are violent.
@DataRepublican 28/
This will both decrease the political pressure to restore order (because people will the arrests as proof the police are doing something without overreacting) while simultaneously framing the protests as violent and making it harder for the protestors to recruit normal people
@DataRepublican 29/
By the time you are finished arresting the worst protestors the people will already be sick of the riots and disorder. Then you can begin arresting the rest of the violent people, and the people who are engaged in "non-violent obstruction" of things like roads and bridges...
@DataRepublican 30/
People will have lost their patience for road blocking. People usually give road blockers a few hours, or a day, to "make their point" before they get sick of blocked roads. So then you can begin to arrest the road blockers, while using EXACTLY the following messaging....
@DataRepublican 31/
"The right to free speech in America does not mean protestors can prevent Ambulances and Firetrucks from reaching the people that need them. Protesters have no right to make Firetrucks sit in traffic while buildings burn, or make ambulances sit in traffic while people die."
@DataRepublican 32/
This framing makes the protestors look like they are taking the city hostage (which they are) and makes them look even worse in light of the violence that LA has seen.
When you hit this stage, you will begin to notice public opinion shift very quickly...
@DataRepublican 33/
Once the people see the protests as violent and see that the protestors are holding the city hostage they will begin to turn against the protestors, and (more importantly) the CAUSE the protestors support
Once that happens, the protests begin to backfire on the protestors...
@DataRepublican 34/
When protestors realize public opinion is turning against them it will begin to destroy their energy and momentum and the protests will begin to die out.
At this point we have to make sure that this never happens again.
Here's how we do that...
@DataRepublican 35/
What you want to do is avoid the J6 mistake. The authorities charged people who were peaceful just for being there, and this made it look like the authorities were overreacting.
What you want to do is start charging and convicting everyone involved in any violent action...
@DataRepublican 36/
The goal is to create a steady stream of convictions over the next couple of years. This is so that the public sees a steady stream of "protestor convicted of assault" stories in the news. Two years of such stories will solidify the narrative that the protests were violent.
@DataRepublican 37/
Don't press charges against people who were just there...only the people who were violent or blocked roads.
By getting a long series of undisputed convictions you solidify the narrative that the protests were violent without looking like you overreacted.
@DataRepublican 38/
By not charging people who were just there you avoid falling into the trap of looking like you arrested people for speaking their mind.
Arrest their violent shock troops, show them for what they are, and win the narrative battle while putting away the most violent people.
@DataRepublican 39/
Don't go for revenge or a "show of strength," because that will backfire.
Stay strong, stay calm, go in stages, and let the attrition and natural decline in momentum make the protests die out with a whimper.
That's how you beat their strategy.
Thanks for reading :)
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the Trump/Elon dispute Elon represents fiscal reality, Trump represents Political reality.
Elon knows the Unite States is headed toward financial collapse caused by its debt, Trump knows voters will never accept the spending cuts and tax hikes needed to solve the debt crisis.
Elon is correct that the United States 36 TRILLION dollar debt will eventually crush the American economy and eat it's budget.
Trump is correct that voters will never accept the tax hikes or spending cuts (especially social security and medicare cuts) needed to pay off the debt.
Elon is saying "The financial crisis is coming. Either we deal with it now or we will deal with the financial collapse of the American economy."
Trump is saying "We can only do what is politically possible. Voters refuse to elect congressmen who will make large cuts to spending"
I think society is returning to the desert of the real.
The social narratives which animated people's lives have lost their power and are dying, and the counter-movements they spawned will (eventually) die alongside them.
We are now living in a decaying hyper-reality...
Baudrillard said we're so saturated in representations and images from mass media (T.V., Movies, books, social media, etc) that images become more salient to us and matter more then the real world, so artificial representations become more "real" to us then actual reality itself.
The result, says Baudrillard is that what feel real to us, what feel immediately important, salient, and meaningful to us is whatever emerges from the ecosystem of artificial, curated, simulated, and manufactured representations produced by the vehicles of mass communication.
1/ Woke activists bully people by using social pressure. They publicly shame and attack people to make them feel like all of society is rejecting them.
See the photo below? They want people feel like all of society is doing that to them.
2/ Call-Outs and Cancel Culture are related but different. Cancel culture tries to get people fired or de-platformed as a way to punish them economically and professionally in order to silence them.
It uses economic and professional punishment to make people fall in line.
3/ Call-outs operate using a very different set of mechanisms: social pressure, the sense of hyper-visibility we feel when we are publicly humiliated, and fear of social rejection.
Call-out leverage these Social Mechanisms in order to apply pressure and make people fall in line.
The woke left thinks what is true depends who says it and which side they are on. Only claims made by "COUNTER-HEGEMONIC" people are believed
The woke right thinks what is true depends on who says it and which side they are on. Only claims made by "DISSIDENT" people are believed
People keep saying the right can't be woke because wokeness denies objective reality, and the right doesn't deny science and biology the way the left does.
That's wrong.
Once the right adopts the belief that truth is matter of who says it and which side they are on....
then it is only a matter of time until they begin denying scientific and biological truths because they are being made by people with the wrong politics.
You can actually see this dynamic in the Glen Greenwald discourse that has shown up over the last several days...
1/ Leftists took over the culture so they could own and control the production and interpretation of *meaning*
They wanted to control culture in order to control meaning, and they wanted to control meaning in order to control thought...and that's the real goal: thought control.
2/ The idea is a pretty simple one, people interpret the world using the concepts, ideas, and frameworks of their culture, so whoever owns the apparatus which produces a societies culture decides which ideas, concepts and frameworks people use to understand the world.
3/ The left thought the reason people supported capitalism and hated communism and socialism was because evil capitalists controlled the culture, and used that control to embed capitalist ideology and ruling class values in the culture where they would be absorbed by the masses
Gen Z women leave the church for the same reason they polarize left.
Intersectional feminism says every belief is socially constructed, and anything claiming to be an absolute universal truth, including Christianity, must be exposed as a social construct through deconstruction,
The Critical Social Justice (AKA: "woke") worldview (ubiquitous among Gen Z college educated women) adopts the postmodern contention that all beliefs and truth claims are "socially constructed," and are thus contaminated by the interests and biases of those who constructed them.
As such, the typical Gen Z college educated woman sees Christianity's claims to being an absolute and universal truth as little more than a mask for what the feminists thing Christianity really is: an expression of the interests, biases, and political agenda of the patriarchy.