the european union will either splinter into riots and political instability in each nation, or breakup and infight.
the u.s. will double down on ukraine and then fight to a stand still.
the u.s. will abandon support for israel after israel attempts or succeeds in starting a war with iran.
the u.s. will unite north and south korea.
the u.s. will go to war with china, likely in south america.
the u.s. will abandon taiwan entirely, and china will come to a resolution with them.
the use of censorship will increase dramatically in the u.s.
deregulation of guns will increase dramatically before a civil war, followed by massive restrictions at the state level.
the states will fight the u.s. government before getting caught up fighting each other.
the u.s. government will try to strengthen itself and its control over the states.
there will be mass deportations of immigrants like never seen before.
there will be a huge outbreak, or else a massive forced vaccination plan. Trump will deny culpability, blaming the left, but do nothing about governors enforcing it, while the governors will blame him for the vaccines and the outbreak.
deficit spending will dip lower briefly before exploding dramatically.
in one or two election cycles we will see a constitutional crisis, and a president appointed or military command take over 'briefly'.
the left will flip against the trannies but not LGBT in general.
the u.s. will move to an effusive non-race specific pseudo-national socialism, if not in name, then in practice.
The US isn't going to double down on Ukraine. What would be the point?
The US is not going to abandon Israel.
The US is not going to war with China.
Censorship will not increase in the US. That's not even possible. They couldn't do it when they were trying.
There will not be a civil war in the US. That's fucking retarded. Have you looked at a political affiliation map? Outside every major city is red as fuck.
There will not be an outbreak and forced vaccinations are impossible as a result of recent SCOTUS precedent and the refusal of 1/3 of the American people the last time.
The president will not be appointed. Fucking retarded.
Tribalism is on the rise, not the decline. If anything, the CRA will be repealed.
Your predictions are bipolar. Some are even mutually exclusive. Most just ignore current events. Many assume behaviors never demonstrated by Americans, other than maybe niggers. And the rest are plain silly.
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 11:56:48 ago (+1/-0)
You can't force Americans to fight a civil war if they don't want to. You can't mandate a jab if 100 million people refuse it. The government, and the oligarchs can pull strings, but ultimately the people, and in this case white people are going to do what they want. Best that they can hope to achieve us deceiving Americans into doing something, but that's getting more and more difficult with the ease of access to information, which they can no longer control. Name some people who have been censored out of existence? Anyone?
You can't force Americans to fight a civil war if they don't want to.
but 4th gen propaganda can make them want to.
1. get people at each other's throats with uneven enforcement of the law (see years of deplatforming, attacks in the streets, the militant death threats and sundry other assaults by one side)
2. censor the side being attacked
3. make the suppressed side feel like it is a life or death struggle and they have no other options
4. let up on the suppression and take a hands off approach
5. some initiating events and bam, you have fighting in the streets.
This is that setup, to the T.
You can't mandate a jab if 100 million people refuse it.
You can if you scare the ever-loving shit out of enough people, or offer UBI in exchange for it during an economic crisis, or stipulate a bunch of things that reduce millions of people to 2nd class citizens for not participating (say better gas rations for those vaxxed, or wearing a mask, or giving up weapons, or sundry other demands).
and in this case white people are going to do what they want.
you assume most of the public decides what they want. I assume most of them have that decided for them through propaganda, both in mainstream, and through the 'alt' media, and numerous other campaigns.
but that's getting more and more difficult with the ease of access to information,
which is exactly why censorship, both the overt, and covert kind will return.
Name some people who have been censored out of existence?
Seth Rich. Breitbart. And more generally, anyone and everyone who has been debanked, and universally deplatformed from significant reach.
Again, propaganda isn't working any more. How old are you? Maybe you don't understand. Information has never been more easily obtained and the ability to deceive people never harder. Censorship is dying. Suppression of speech is dying. Attempts at false flags are exposed in hours, not weeks, months, or years.
Mandates for jabs do not work. They tried their ass off to scare people and mandate jabs 4 years ago. 1/3 said "fuck that" this time around. It took 4 years to expose the scam. Fauci has to be pardoned to avoid prosecution. Next time, more will refuse, not less. And again, disinformation, deception, lies, false flags, none of this shit works any more. They can't scare people like they used to.
This is your problem and tends to expose that you're over 50. You don't seem to grasp what's going on. Deep fakes are seen through in minutes. False flags exposed in hours. Look at Ukraine's false flag, yesterday. No one bought it. They've been caught a half dozen times trying to false flag Russia, and each time, exposed in hours, not days. Then, when the shit is exposed, public trust is lost and not going to come back. Your problem is that you think people are stupid because generations before these fell for the propaganda. But in today's world, it's way too easy to discuss the facts with literally millions of people and determine what's true and what isn't. You don't have to get Walter Kronkite to give you his "investigative reporting" and perspective. You can text the people directly affected, directly impacted. Whistleblowers don't have to find a trustworthy reporter at a major news outlet. They can simply post a post on X or insta or Gab or the fedi. If it's real, it will get out. No gatekeepers involved. People will cross post the information. People will create content based on the information and that content will be discussed and evaluated and looked into by others.
And censorship can't return. It isn't possible. Hasn't this been proven in spades? Who is banned from the internet? Anyone? Can you name 1 person who can't access the internet and post their information, thoughts, opinions, perspectives, or insights? No! They certainly tried, but all it did was Streisand effect them. Censorship is a dying thing.
Seth Rich is dead. That's not Censorship. And Seth Rich died a decade ago and we all know what happened. A decade ago. 10 fucking years ago. Do you know how much has changed re censorship in the last 10 years? Breitbart. He died 13 years ago. Yes. "They" can kill people to silence them, but 1. That's not censorship, that's murder, and 2. We all know what they did to Breitbart and Rich. Their message is still there loud and clear. We all know they were silenced and we all know what their message was. And again, that was 10 years ago. The world of information sharing is vastly different, which is why you can't name anyone in this decade.
Whose currently debanked? Who us currently universally deplatformed? Who can't reach anyone and everyone who wants to hear what they have to say?
For example, Nick Fuentes. He's debanked. He makes millions without them. He's "universally deplaformed" but has hundreds of thousands of followers. If he wants to raise money he sells hats and takes crypto, still sells thousands of hats. The efforts to shut him up failed. Their efforts will continue to fail.
All their bullshit is being exposed and trust in "them" is destroyed. They can't get that back.
What do you think bill, bush, and obama tacitly pushing the two-state solution, and refusing to start a war with iran are about?
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are the key to breaking BRICS.
If it's the death of the u.s. dollar vs preserving israel, money comes before religion when the cards are down, especially if every other facet of the u.s. empire goes tits up without global dollar hegemony.
What do you think bill, bush, and obama tacitly pushing the two-state solution, and refusing to start a war with iran are about?
Reading the script that Israel gave them. It’s literally all a show.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are they key to breaking BRICS.
BRICS is irrelevant in every measurable way. It’s the same thing as the 1980s fearmongering about “the rise of Japan” and the 1990s-2010s fearmongering about “the rise of China.” BRICS is part of the IMF. They’re all owned by jews. It’s all the same economic system. The only threat is to white people. Not jews. Not jewish institutions. Not jewish wealth.
If it's the death of the u.s. dollar vs preserving israel, money comes before religion when the cards are down
Not for jews. They’ll destroy the US dollar and just immigrate to China, where they’re all allowed to become inner party members since they’re jewish.
BRICS is irrelevant in every measurable way. It’s the same thing as the 1980s fearmongering about “the rise of Japan” and the 1990s-2010s fearmongering about “the rise of China.” BRICS is part of the IMF. They’re all owned by jews. It’s all the same economic system. The only threat is to white people. Not jews. Not jewish institutions. Not jewish wealth.
Mostly I agree with you but this is a clash-of-nations level breakdown, what you're talking about is a higher level of abstraction. They're not mutually exclusive.
Guys at layer N don't always have the full picture of whats going on N+M layers above them or what the full motives or strategies are.
Here are my heuristics assuming the two party system is a front with mere factions that cross 'party' lines.
when both political sides accuse the other of doing the same thing, it is a way for at least one side to deflect blame for the outcome to what they both privately agreed to.
when both sides actively deny the intentions they accuse the other of, it is because that is what both sides are planning
when both sides refuse to speak on a subject at all it is because they are already engaged in it and have no say over it or it is of such huge ramifications that doing so would upset the applecart.
when both sides agree to do something, they will do the opposite.
The jewish occupied US gov will stand with israel even if America is reduced to ashes.
Thats why the u.s. gov went to full ww3 against russia right?
Except the u.s. didn't. The u.s. engaged in hybrid and proxy war because the u.s. wants to project strength we don't have. 9/11 was supposed to perma-flip u.s. public isolationist sentiment while indebting the u.s. It did the latter but failed to accomplish the former. Sentiment has become even more isolationist, contaminated by the populist sentiment arising from the post-9/11 military economic, and political environment.
The u.s. behavior against russia will be the same behavior in the middle east, because a leopard can't change its spots.
So if we factor this in with the behavior indicating decoupling, combine with the isolationist draw-back from u.s. military commitments, we can start to predict what is unfolding in the middle east.
The u.s. will tacitly or initially support an israeli-iranian conflict if that in fact kicks off. The u.s. will then backpedal when turkey or another nation gets involved, leaving israel to twist in the wind. This will be sold on the grounds that we "don't have the armaments for a larger conflict", or some economic collapse in the u.s., or some new war front elsewhere e.x. "we can't afford a two-front war", which might explain the rising talk about a chinese conflict.
The u.s. will call for peace-keeping forces in gaza, as a false show of support for israel. In truth it will be to keep israeli stability during a regime-change move, and as evidence of this see the state-department funded anti-israeli NGOs in the u.s, and color-change tactics against netanyahu. The forces we station there, if we station them there at all, will exist to maintain our foothold in the middle east as a balancing act.
Iran exists to balance israeli influence, and keep the strategy of tension going. If we're kicking off any sort of conflict, it is because iran is no longer needed. This suggests the approaches we made to other nations are backchannel offers, like to turkey and a couple others, for a bigger role, in exchange for them cooling relations with russia. Russia will go along with this because we're offering a seemingly 'uncontested' pull-out on ukraine, but I think this is subertfuge for a variety of reasons. The u.s. has determined the deciding factor on the balance of power between russia and china in their emerging world basket-currency alliance is the ukrainian bread basket. The weaker of the two in this engagement, when all factors are considered, is russia, so by supplying them with plenty of food, russia and china are put on an even footing, which means china will overstep eventually and spoil the alliance as a result.
To contain russia we'll have to control the various straits and ports of the middle east. We can't do that without an initiating conflict, and more cooperation from other nations besides israel, and israel won't tolerate that.
It's a bit of a two-fer, block the belt-and-road initiative from ever becoming more than a grift (it would have gained new life with the rise of brics and both would have been mutually self-bootstraping in a systems analysis), occupy the broader geopolitical space in the vacuum created by the chaos, offer russia new alliances in a bankrupt europe, the chaos of which will be a net negative, and block expansion southward in relation to energy expenditures, tie russia down with overly complicated and semi-mutually exclusive energy alliances, threatening its broader western flank. All of this aligns with the heartland thesis.
Whether america is reduced to ashes is ancillary to the u.s. government, because continuity plans mean nothing changes for those running the show.
We agree that states will start the process of secession, as things heat up politically, and the environment cools down economically. The move to crypto and gold-backed state treasuries is that to a T, and political infighting over priorities is anocratic, the opening shots to exactly what you are talking about.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 5 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 09:59:07 ago (+5/-0)
The US is not going to abandon Israel.
The US is not going to war with China.
Censorship will not increase in the US. That's not even possible. They couldn't do it when they were trying.
There will not be a civil war in the US. That's fucking retarded. Have you looked at a political affiliation map? Outside every major city is red as fuck.
There will not be an outbreak and forced vaccinations are impossible as a result of recent SCOTUS precedent and the refusal of 1/3 of the American people the last time.
The president will not be appointed. Fucking retarded.
Tribalism is on the rise, not the decline. If anything, the CRA will be repealed.
Your predictions are bipolar and dumb.
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype [op] -1 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 10:53:03 ago (+0/-1)
I think you will find yourself in time asking how the fuck I managed to get my hands on a working crystal ball.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 3 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 11:42:48 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype [op] -1 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 11:51:27 ago (+0/-1)
Method of levels.
They are mutually exclusive assuming motivations and intents at particular levels of the regime, but evince designs at other higher levels.
You can't be this dense to assume american citizens set the agenda.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 11:56:48 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype [op] 0 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 16:18:03 ago (+0/-0)
but 4th gen propaganda can make them want to.
1. get people at each other's throats with uneven enforcement of the law (see years of deplatforming, attacks in the streets, the militant death threats and sundry other assaults by one side)
2. censor the side being attacked
3. make the suppressed side feel like it is a life or death struggle and they have no other options
4. let up on the suppression and take a hands off approach
5. some initiating events and bam, you have fighting in the streets.
This is that setup, to the T.
You can if you scare the ever-loving shit out of enough people, or offer UBI in exchange for it during an economic crisis, or stipulate a bunch of things that reduce millions of people to 2nd class citizens for not participating (say better gas rations for those vaxxed, or wearing a mask, or giving up weapons, or sundry other demands).
you assume most of the public decides what they want. I assume most of them have that decided for them through propaganda, both in mainstream, and through the 'alt' media, and numerous other campaigns.
which is exactly why censorship, both the overt, and covert kind will return.
Seth Rich. Breitbart. And more generally, anyone and everyone who has been debanked, and universally deplatformed from significant reach.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 17:34:03 ago (+0/-0)
Mandates for jabs do not work. They tried their ass off to scare people and mandate jabs 4 years ago. 1/3 said "fuck that" this time around. It took 4 years to expose the scam. Fauci has to be pardoned to avoid prosecution. Next time, more will refuse, not less. And again, disinformation, deception, lies, false flags, none of this shit works any more. They can't scare people like they used to.
This is your problem and tends to expose that you're over 50. You don't seem to grasp what's going on. Deep fakes are seen through in minutes. False flags exposed in hours. Look at Ukraine's false flag, yesterday.
No one bought it. They've been caught a half dozen times trying to false flag Russia, and each time, exposed in hours, not days. Then, when the shit is exposed, public trust is lost and not going to come back. Your problem is that you think people are stupid because generations before these fell for the propaganda. But in today's world, it's way too easy to discuss the facts with literally millions of people and determine what's true and what isn't. You don't have to get Walter Kronkite to give you his "investigative reporting" and perspective. You can text the people directly affected, directly impacted. Whistleblowers don't have to find a trustworthy reporter at a major news outlet. They can simply post a post on X or insta or Gab or the fedi. If it's real, it will get out. No gatekeepers involved. People will cross post the information. People will create content based on the information and that content will be discussed and evaluated and looked into by others.
And censorship can't return. It isn't possible. Hasn't this been proven in spades? Who is banned from the internet? Anyone? Can you name 1 person who can't access the internet and post their information, thoughts, opinions, perspectives, or insights? No! They certainly tried, but all it did was Streisand effect them. Censorship is a dying thing.
Seth Rich is dead. That's not Censorship. And Seth Rich died a decade ago and we all know what happened. A decade ago. 10 fucking years ago. Do you know how much has changed re censorship in the last 10 years? Breitbart. He died 13 years ago. Yes. "They" can kill people to silence them, but 1. That's not censorship, that's murder, and 2. We all know what they did to Breitbart and Rich. Their message is still there loud and clear. We all know they were silenced and we all know what their message was. And again, that was 10 years ago. The world of information sharing is vastly different, which is why you can't name anyone in this decade.
Whose currently debanked? Who us currently universally deplatformed? Who can't reach anyone and everyone who wants to hear what they have to say?
For example, Nick Fuentes. He's debanked. He makes millions without them. He's "universally deplaformed" but has hundreds of thousands of followers. If he wants to raise money he sells hats and takes crypto, still sells thousands of hats. The efforts to shut him up failed. Their efforts will continue to fail.
All their bullshit is being exposed and trust in "them" is destroyed. They can't get that back.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 2 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 10:34:24 ago (+2/-0)
LOL
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype [op] -1 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 10:55:19 ago (+0/-1)*
What do you think bill, bush, and obama tacitly pushing the two-state solution, and refusing to start a war with iran are about?
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are the key to breaking BRICS.
If it's the death of the u.s. dollar vs preserving israel, money comes before religion when the cards are down, especially if every other facet of the u.s. empire goes tits up without global dollar hegemony.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 13:04:44 ago (+1/-0)
Reading the script that Israel gave them. It’s literally all a show.
BRICS is irrelevant in every measurable way. It’s the same thing as the 1980s fearmongering about “the rise of Japan” and the 1990s-2010s fearmongering about “the rise of China.” BRICS is part of the IMF. They’re all owned by jews. It’s all the same economic system. The only threat is to white people. Not jews. Not jewish institutions. Not jewish wealth.
Not for jews. They’ll destroy the US dollar and just immigrate to China, where they’re all allowed to become inner party members since they’re jewish.
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype [op] 0 points 3 monthsFeb 21, 2025 15:52:10 ago (+0/-0)*
Mostly I agree with you but this is a clash-of-nations level breakdown, what you're talking about is a higher level of abstraction. They're not mutually exclusive.
Guys at layer N don't always have the full picture of whats going on N+M layers above them or what the full motives or strategies are.
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 2 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 09:54:37 ago (+2/-0)
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype [op] -1 points 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 09:56:42 ago (+0/-1)*
when both political sides accuse the other of doing the same thing,
it is a way for at least one side to deflect blame
for the outcome to what they both privately agreed to.
when both sides actively deny the intentions they
accuse the other of, it is because that is what both
sides are planning
when both sides refuse to speak on a subject at all
it is because they are already engaged in it and
have no say over it or it is of such huge
ramifications that doing so would upset the applecart.
when both sides agree to do something, they will do
the opposite.
[ + ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic
[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic 1 point 4 monthsFeb 14, 2025 11:39:22 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype [op] 0 points 3 monthsFeb 25, 2025 13:51:20 ago (+0/-0)
Thats why the u.s. gov went to full ww3 against russia right?
Except the u.s. didn't. The u.s. engaged in hybrid and proxy war because the u.s. wants to project strength we don't have.
9/11 was supposed to perma-flip u.s. public isolationist sentiment while indebting the u.s.
It did the latter but failed to accomplish the former.
Sentiment has become even more isolationist, contaminated by the populist sentiment arising from the post-9/11 military economic, and political environment.
The u.s. behavior against russia will be the same behavior in the middle east, because a leopard can't change its spots.
So if we factor this in with the behavior indicating decoupling, combine with the isolationist draw-back from u.s. military commitments, we can start to predict what is unfolding in the middle east.
The u.s. will tacitly or initially support an israeli-iranian conflict if that in fact kicks off.
The u.s. will then backpedal when turkey or another nation gets involved, leaving israel to twist in the wind.
This will be sold on the grounds that we "don't have the armaments for a larger conflict", or some economic collapse in the u.s., or some new war front elsewhere e.x. "we can't afford a two-front war", which might explain the rising talk about a chinese conflict.
The u.s. will call for peace-keeping forces in gaza, as a false show of support for israel. In truth it will be to keep israeli stability during a regime-change move, and as evidence of this see the state-department funded anti-israeli NGOs in the u.s, and color-change tactics against netanyahu. The forces we station there, if we station them there at all, will exist to maintain our foothold in the middle east as a balancing act.
Iran exists to balance israeli influence, and keep the strategy of tension going. If we're kicking off any sort of conflict, it is because iran is no longer needed. This suggests the approaches we made to other nations are backchannel offers, like to turkey and a couple others, for a bigger role, in exchange for them cooling relations with russia.
Russia will go along with this because we're offering a seemingly 'uncontested' pull-out on ukraine, but I think this is subertfuge for a variety of reasons. The u.s. has determined the deciding factor on the balance of power between russia and china in their emerging world basket-currency alliance is the ukrainian bread basket. The weaker of the two in this engagement, when all factors are considered, is russia, so by supplying them with plenty of food, russia and china are put on an even footing, which means china will overstep eventually and spoil the alliance as a result.
To contain russia we'll have to control the various straits and ports of the middle east. We can't do that without an initiating conflict, and more cooperation from other nations besides israel, and israel won't tolerate that.
It's a bit of a two-fer, block the belt-and-road initiative from ever becoming more than a grift (it would have gained new life with the rise of brics and both would have been mutually self-bootstraping in a systems analysis), occupy the broader geopolitical space in the vacuum created by the chaos, offer russia new alliances in a bankrupt europe, the chaos of which will be a net negative, and block expansion southward in relation to energy expenditures, tie russia down with overly complicated and semi-mutually exclusive energy alliances, threatening its broader western flank. All of this aligns with the heartland thesis.
Whether america is reduced to ashes is ancillary to the u.s. government, because continuity plans mean nothing changes for those running the show.
We agree that states will start the process of secession, as things heat up politically, and the environment cools down economically. The move to crypto and gold-backed state treasuries is that to a T, and political infighting over priorities is anocratic, the opening shots to exactly what you are talking about.