UPDATE ON STRATEGY —“Our movement consists of a proposed system of rule of law

UPDATE ON STRATEGY

—“Our movement consists of a proposed system of rule of law that advocates reform. Specifically: expanding property rights to include the collective rights logically implied by the existence of commons; expanding perjury into public spaces with more specific definitions of falsehoods; and limiting laws to those that are reciprocal and non-parasitic in nature so that we are limited to exchanges and compromises instead of majority dictate. We combine those legal reforms with economic reforms that restore the primacy of the family and laboring, working, and middle classes. The rest is about how best to achieve implementation which is open to debatae.”— Stephen Wells

P is an intellectual movement (and an upper class one at that) trying to branch into a political movement, to mobilize and make use of the (constantly failing) anti-intellectual right that is an underserved political demographic.

And yes it’s difficult. But John showed it can be done. It’s just having the content and doing the quality of marketing. If we got big enough, created a political party, then he could abandon the helmet, and he would have been our political frontman, and a good one. He’d make a great politician.

Our focus on building a political movement, especially one that would control the dialog, instead of a “gossip” movement (which is everyone else on the internet) means we aren’t looking for attention and clicks, we’re looking to educate and accumulate ONLY those people that will show up on a medium that is cheap (free) but is crowded with people who only want attention (clicks). so as john said, the “Good People” are too few in relation to the “Bad People”. But it’s the only ‘cheap’ game in town so it’s the vehicle we’re forced to use.

The reason for an ‘event’ is that it ‘breaks the fourth wall’ so to speak and converts an internet movement into a real-world movement. That’s all that we needed. And it would have been fine, because we handled the crisis on the ground, and in the eyes of the media and the anti-right institutions, we succeeded. But since I don’t have a purity sense, I didn’t understand the online Purity Spiral and certainly didn’t anticipate that the ‘gossip’ crowed would come after us so much so that they’d undermine political success in the field, for their OWN optics.

In retrospect, 1 – I should have put our plan out to everyone there even if it would leak to the enemy. 2 – We should have had our talking points ready, and rehearsed those talking points with everyone who attended so that they stayed on policy and didn’t bring up inflammatory nonsense. (That was our first takeaway that night). 3 – We also didn’t vet people individually, and there was a crossover with the 2A group so we didn’t realize that there were nitwits in our group that would do something stupid and fall for the leftist bait. You can’t do that. It’s ok if I do something stupid – I can always blame it on being a nerd or autistic, or clueless. It’s not ok if participants do. 4 – We have to get across that Optics are for the enemy (smoke), not for our own (confidence). Our ONLY optics are silence and military stoicism (non-reaction, acting as one). That’s the only optic that matters. 5 – Our message is policy not identity. We get an identity as a product of policy. our policy is for everyone. we benefit from it like everyone else.

As a consequence, 1 – we have to target our market and circumvent the nitwit and gossip crowd, by appealing to the ‘good’ and offending (demeaning) the ‘bad’ elements on line. this is a working class elitist and virtue signaling tactic. In other words appeal to virtue, purity, and alienate the “I can’t control myself’ segment of the man-boy population. This is not a mass movement. It’s a 1% movement. We only need the good ones: the ‘renaissance men’ to win.

(There is more to be said here but I have to go to the grocery store. lol )

The best negative feedback is to ignore people. There is no technique more effective that ignoring people and repeating the message every time. So, the only value of interacting with other nitwits online is to learn about them or to exploit them as a vehicle to reach the ‘few good people’ who are not using it as a video game. So, the online community is largely is immaterial. It doesn’t affect votes. It doesn’t affect policy. Everyone wants attention because they think if they get 100K or 200K of follows they matter. It doesn’t. It’s entertainment. It doesn’t do anything. Unless you can turn attention into political action it’s just entertainment.

The problem for the right is a false feeling of being a minority because of ostracization from mainstream information flow. We aren’t a minority. We are a minority in the mainstream information flow because that’s how the enemy conducts war. And the only way to win that is the same way it is in the rest of life: if someone gets in your face, they’ve broken the contract for the non-imposition of force. And so force is the only solution.

To create our own information flow use Parler and get into our own flow of information. Try to convince Parler to get big enough to duplicate, buy, license Bit Chute tech. Parler has the chance to get big enough that we have a ‘fox news’ equivalent competitor to the enemy. If it gets big enough Parler gets advertisers. Gab could have done the same thing but they focused on investing the wrong feature set, and not enough on performance. So Parler has taken the market. Bitchute is still too hard to use (slow to add content). But this will work eventually. It’s a matter of critical mass.