Sign into an existing account

Let me explain to you this absurd giant shitpost.

I didn't support Trump in 2016, not because I didn't like him and what he had to say, but because I was blackpilled and didn't think he would fulfill any of his promises.

Naturally he won.

I supported him in 2020 and he lost.

When I supported the whites, all they were doing was losing.

When I stopped supporting whites and converted to Judaism, siding with the dollar on the basis that the u.s. would lose its standing and be subject to further sabotage on the world stage if we lost our dominance? what happened next?

The very next day they got hit by terror attacks and began, along with the dollar, to lose big time.

I am a born loser, everything I support loses.

As schizoposty this is, it is the truth. It's like a curse. I threatened the withdrawal of the mimschach anointing.

The truth is my support is itself the withdrawal of the anointing.

Hear me, because I know there are rabbis or those who converse with rabbis here, ones open-minded enough to consider that what I am saying is true, however superstitious it may be.

All I have to do is be willing, even up to death, to support Judaism, and Judaism will suffer it's destruction.
You could throw me into prison with big aryan rapists, or threaten me and my entire family with death, and I would not disavow my Judaism.

Gxd desires even your redemption and reform. Systems of wickedness have used you as middlemen and allowed you to run rampant. The surest way to destroy a people is to hold them to a lower and different standard than everyone else. This is by definition unnatural.

In order that you may be saved, I have converted to Judaism to punish you, withdrawing your favored status and to affect your utter reform that you may not perish from this world but be restored to righteousness, whatever the cost to me. Whatever a man truly seeks to destroy, he must support utterly, even unto his own destruction.

Glory To The L*rd, Glory to Gxd. Amen.

https://pomf2.lain.la/f/opzvmpvm.png

file under "VOAT DRAMA FOR THE LULZ"

She takes off her head covering to get a better look at the stripper and scowl at her.
A patron walks up, hands her a dollar bill and exclaims enthusiastically 'you should make a habit of that!'

Many of you won't accept this because of who the messenger is, which is all
the more beneficial to my people, who will see this and accept it because of who
the messenger is.

This is going to be a bit de-constructive and recursive in the break down so
try and follow along. We have a lot of territory to cover.

First, trump was unseated in 2020 for one reason:
He refused to start a war for israel, and gave them a paltry offering of
soleimani and bombing an empty airfield to appease them. As you know, we
are never appeased by token offerings, especially when they're given with
the intent of not fulfilling our whole demands.

So trump was out. What shocked us then was how his replacement also continuously
failed to start a broader war for us against our enemies.

What none of my fellow travelers figured out was that the reason both of
these presidents resisted us is because neither of them were really calling
the shots.

Jake Sullivan, Obama's man, head of the NSC, was and is calling the shots.
And the reason we've been given these scraps of appeasement, 1. shutting
down the gaza protests where reasonably possible, 2. bombing an empty airfield,
3. weapons packages (though our people and israel have been denied those on
several occasions as well) and so on, is to keep us complacent.
The bigger agenda has been actively denied us.

Why?
Follow the shekels goys.
This is about the US dollar vs BRICs.

Naturally we've hedged our bets in both eventualities, but BRICS is less of
a certainty.

The middle eastern territories, undoubtedly actively entertained by the members of
BRICS, have been considering and in serious planning to switch from the u.s. currency
system and moving to BRICS (spelled with an uppercase S, to stand for Saudi Arabia).
Thats the whole kit and kaboodle for everything you see.

To lose control of our greatest ally (lol) by our golem losing significant reserve
status around the world just won't do, so we've been forced to take drastic measures,
including starting a broader war in the middle east to level it and leave us
standing the victor. The middle east is the achilles heel of BRICS, and we're hoping
to draw russia and china into a conflict there, to cause BRICS to be still-born, or
put a ceiling on the ultimate potential of it.

The Trump assassination attempt was our people, the israelis. The thinking was
even if he survived, as long as we made it look like the iranians, we'd have a good
shot at pushing him into our way of thinking on iran and the rest of their ilk in the middle east.
We didn't expect it to come that close or to fail by such a narrow margin, but
our people also had camera men in place for propaganda-esque photos so we could
frame it as a controlled op as well in the event of failure, isolating trump further,
and pushing him into our arms. The controversy of the event would make him controllable.
Naturally the useful idiot fell for it.

I'm sure our people in israel are glad they hedged for that highly unlikely outcome, but
I digress.

There was another plot in place. DHS arranged to replace the SS for the event, and make
cheatle the fall guy. Remember, always hedge for all eventualities. So in the
event we failed, we would replace the head of SS and put guys we controlled dead center
right next to the next president, so we wouldn't have a repeat of trump or whoever
is in office next, screwing up the entire thing by bombing an empty airfield and declaring
victory. And that little plot of his only worked because the american public are clapping
seals that will believe anything if told by their preferred ideological leader.

In any case we also hoped to take his incipient antigun stance (which he has for the most
part concealed rather well) and push him hard left on this issue. If we've succeeded,
you will see more and bigger policies pass than the bumpstock ban only after the election.

Meanwhile the gaza protests, which came out of nowhere, we funded, organized, and fueled.
The left half of the uniparty thought it'd be a good exercise to uselessly expend this
radical energy which is destabilizing their half of The Party, and bonus, I'm sure
someone whispered in their ear "you can appease and assuage the israeli's fear of their
slowly slipping grasp on power, if you start these protests and then stomp them out."
And of course they did exactly what I thought they would do, which tells us what
the dominant half of the the party, the apparatchiks, were thinking and what their
intent was: to buck control of us.

There was also issues of people leaving the political plantation of the false left-right
dialectic that we used for predictability, forecasting, and behavior control.
We saw some nascent embers of old occupy-wallstreet type thinking, just slivers really,
but that was enough to cause concern, least of all all the chatter on countless
social media sites, comment sections, and the numerous alt-news controlled opposition
sites we host. These are really just thermometers and barometers of what the gentiles
are thinking.

At this time the israelis are hoping, even if they have to push out kamala, that
if they can push through a plausible trump election, we can use it to fuel a radical
leftwing outbreak, justifying cleaning up our prior useful idiots now that we've
realized they have begun to risk going too far outside our controls. This is also
why we've been courting the evangelicals and why we introduced the "judeo-christian"
propaganda so recently and injected it all across the internet and global gentile narrative
discussions.

Also, white evangelicals make the best warm-bodies for purging muslims: whoever dies, it
ends up being a two-for-one deal.

The technocrat faction in the u.s., headed by peter thiel, and divided between loyalty
to the isolationist faction of the pentagon/military, and the covert CCP coalition in
the u.s., are pushing back against us at the moment, but thats of no consequence.

Russia hopes by winning the war in ukraine, it will become a narrative stepping stone
to lay a foundation that BRICS is capable of being defended de facto. And therefore
with russia becoming the resource capitol of this currency-standard alliance, they'll
become an export economy and grow their real wealth enormously, enabling them
to push out the destabilizing muslim and foreign elements for good. The russians are
concerned with power here, or growing and maintaining it in the long term.
If that happens, it also solves china's incipient labor problem, by providing middle
class jobs (manufacturing) based on russia's materials and resource exports. Middle class
jobs mean money for families, money for families means economic and political stability,
and the halting of the demographic collapse they and all the rest are going through.
After that 20-50 years on, they slowly get to do what the u.s. did, which is export
jobs to foreign countries, namely the rest of asia and critically, south america
and africa, breaking the u.s. plan for north-south american integration, giving them
bigger inroads to completely destabilizing the u.s. and causing the u.s. to lose
further territory. Likewise, manufacturing export to africa will give the chinese
serious economic control over africa, to expand in the coming century into the middle
east, leveraging their existing position to reweight their currencies for better
favor ability in the BRICS basket, and moving north, isolate their partners, russia
into a disadvantaged position, however subtle. As this happens, the raw materials
of russia become unnecessary, especially with control of south america, africa,
and parts of the middle east.

As this happens, russia, becoming increasingly uncertain over the solidity of its
position, will turn to europe, and likewise, the europeans to
russia.

This will cut off the americans even further, effectively completely isolating them
politically, economically, and financially from the rest of the world.

This is the shape of the future, and now you know what is going to happen.
Shalom goys, and be grateful someone actually gave you a glimpse of the whole picture.

Or what we might call DOBS.

The basic premise is that you can trick an opponent into an unwinnable argument culturally, essentially by supporting unreasonable positions of a particular kind.

Some background:
Typically in a sufficiently polarized environment the most unreasonable side wins.

Culture eats strategy for lunch because culture provides the grass roots for diffuse attrition-like rhetorical attacks on various organizations that form the institutional backbone of some ideology or movement.

A 'blind side' attack is any positional change in rhetoric or ideology that blind sides an opponent.

In comes DOBS.

The idea is culture can't be attacked directly because it is diffused. By getting your opponents to fight unreasonable demands, they will coalesce into a movement outraged by those demands, allowing you to ideologically or rhetorically defeat a culture by forcing it into an orientation that is movement based. This is to say culture can't normally be defeated by an enemy that does not concentrate their forces so to speak, is not easy to hit.

And here is where dobs comes in.
By espousing two unreasonable positions together, it is not sufficient for an opponent to refute one, it leaves the other uncontested, sort of like dialectic. It is what is happening now, for example, with the automatic draft registration for men vs women. Notice the silence on men being automatically registered vs women being automatically registered?
This is the effect in action.

The obvious answer is no one, on either side, should be automatically registered for the draft. But the process of fighting one half of the argument means the other half of the argument goes unanswered. The culture exhausts itself in the face of the obvious, and movements formed out of the culture to fight the premise, are drawn out of the culture into camps that are divided on which message to target.

This will also work with other issues.

Guns for example:
Are felons allowed to own guns? No, obviously, but we assert they should.
Were the mccloskeys, or anyone threatened by an entire mob, justified in killing the entire mob to defend themselves?

To our opponents the answers are obvious, and the questions and assertions unreasonable.

This works because it also exploits the difference between the ideals of the individual (everyone should own guns), and the realities and pragmatism of communities operating as a *collection*. An ideology within the culture, leftism for example, is forced to draw out into antagonistic elements, movements, to argue against the push of these messages. They are then forced to choose between arguing individual right, or collective right, and in so doing divide camps.

It is even more affective if one position is only just outrageous and the other provocatively outrageous while pitting collectic impulses against individual ideals, especially when targetted at big umbrella movements.
When the messages are focused *on the opponent* it pulls double duty.

"should advocating LGBTQ in public be a felony and LGBTQ be banned outright?"
"should he-shes be banned from all LGBTQ organizations and pride parades?"

By targeting their rituals with these messages, the activities of movements become the ideological attack surface of a diffuse and ephemeral culture.

They are now forced either to defend the collective or the individual, and lose in either case, splitting their umbrella in the process.

Follow up:
By continuously implementing the blind side, or blindsiding with *additional* blindsides, an opponent and culture is ideologically isolated and cut-up piecemeal into increasingly smaller, and ever-more risk-averse camps.
Additionally strivers and ideological rebels implementing this strategy to rhetorically attack culture, have the added benefit that if any set of messages provokes too strong a response, they can still withdraw to the least outrageous of the two arguments while still having gained ground, taking refuge in the exploitable difference between audacity and the more 'moderate' position, and the reaction provoked against them will in turn solidify their opinions of the position in the process.

Conclusion:
Dobs or dobbing is a brand new propaganda strategy and tactic, that allows movements to compete with culture, and a means to allow strategy to directly attack cultural beliefs. I think it will be a powerful addition and one that is worth exploring further.