A strategy the media will use to demoralize Trump voters is to call an early win for Biden in certain states. I suspect they'll also have plants at lines in contentious areas to tell people Biden already won the state. The hope is that Trump voters won't bother waiting in line to vote.
Don't fall for it. Vote! Tell everyone you know to keep voting no matter what!
It also might be a good idea if you're in a busy area to stick around after voting and make sure the democrats aren't up to any covert operations to get Trump supporters to skip voting because "Biden already won".
I think that's pretty telling.
No one ever watched some videos, learns more about economics and the impacts of policy decisions between Trump and the democrats then says "omg Trump lied to me and now I see the truth. I must vote democrat."
It just doesn't happen, ever.
A new study out of Greece was done to try and figure out what society would be like if all politicians were women by analyzing the policies of female politicians.
The study concluded the following:
- Private property would be abolished
- Wages between professions would be equal in pay
- Living standards would be unified and no classes would exist
- All basic needs would be considered a right to be provided by the State
- Attractive men would only be allowed to have sex with an attractive woman outside of marriage if the men first had sex with an unattractive woman
- Women would be allowed to require their husbands to provide sex for them whenever they felt like
- Children will be raised by women only in communal nurturing centers. The concept of fatherhood would be abolished as men would no longer partake in the raising of children.
Actually, it wasn't a study, it was a play written 2400 years ago. Sounds a lot like where this society is going ever since women got the right to vote, doesn't it?
I mean, that just seems too obvious...
So I did a little research and wikipedia is trying to attribute the origins of CRT to a black woman from Harvard. This just smells like history revisions. She's a front woman for the cause because of course a "smart black woman" would come up with such a thing...
Well then there's this guy.
Noel Ignatiev. A Jew and self-described Marxist.
"A Marxist activist, he was involved in efforts by African American steel workers to achieve equality in the mills. In 1984, he was laid off from the steel mill, approximately a year after an arrest on charges of attacking a strike-breaker's car with a paint bomb.
"Ignatiev set up Marxist discussion groups in the early 1980s. In 1985, Ignatiev was accepted to the Harvard Graduate School of Education without an undergraduate degree."
"His academic work was linked to his call to "abolish" the white race"
It's no coincidence you have Jewish Marxists like this guy in Harvard grad studies and then CRT is brought into fruition in the next decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev#cite_note-HarvardMagazine-3
Of course CRT has Jewish Marxist origins, like who'd have imagined.
I just started applying to law school today. Every single school I went to has some sort of Marxist bullshit on their front page.
One school has front headline: A lecture by a professor on "how to do policing different". Another school was advertising how if you fit their diversity and inclusion profile you can get special admissions. Another school had resources for anti-racism on the front page.
We need to literally dismantle the education system completely. Start from scratch.
I've spent the past 6 months studying communism and fascism in detail for obvious reasons. The left's agenda for the western world finally become clearly than day since covid-19 and the build up for the Presidency started.
I seem to be coming to a conclusion I didn't think I was going to be coming to but I'm starting to think fascism is the only hard counter to communism. I believe communists know this intrinsically as well which is why they are so vehemently anti-fascist when fascism doesn't even exist anywhere in the world. They fear it because they know it's their hard counter to communism.
Now lots of people don't understand what fascism is and to be honest neither did I but essentially this is what it is:
-
A rejection of egalitarianism and an embrace of inequality. Fascism believes in empowering competent people and only providing for the less competent in so much as they contribute to society. It is the epitome of meritocracy. This is on of the core tenants that places it in direct opposition to communism.
-
A hybrid between capitalism and socialism where you have free market capitalism except it is heavily regulated to support the national interest. The extent of this regulation can vary considerably and this has caused a lot of debate. Many capitalists see fascism as "effectively socialist" since owners don't truly have control over their own private property. Communists see fascism as capitalism but the end-game of capitalism and/or feudalism and all capitalist systems approach fascism in the end. Either way you slice it, a capitalist system that is regulated by the government to be in the national interest is pretty much what the USA already is. It's simply a matter of what the extent of this regulation is. Ideally, you want as little regulation as possible but enough to maximize the national interest in relation to foreign competition. This seems reasonable for anyone but socialists/communists.
-
A rejection of total individualism in which everyone simply does what is in their personal interest without regard for anything else but not a total embrace of collectivism. Fascism is a middle-ground between individualism and collectivism. It believes people should put the Nation first but in a sort of calculus type equation where people still have weights toward their family and themselves. That means there can still be disagreements with regards to what the best course of action for the State may be due to how it can impact the individual but ultimately the State must be considered in decision making. Basically, it's individualism except with a restriction toward having an interest toward improving the State. It's not unbound individualism but it's not restrictive collectivism either. Fascism tries to take the best elements from collectivism and individuals and merge them together to get rid of the worst elements from both.
-
Objective morality controlled by the state. Morality as determined by the state in which the state legislates based on morality. The outcome of morality should be to do what is in the best interest of the state. Here is where fascism can diverge and where I would add my own twist to fascism. In Hitler's Nazi, Hitler essentially wanted to make the State the determinants of morality and he rejected religion. In Mussolini's fascism, the State essentially adopted Catholicism as the determinants of morality (Mussolini was forced into his due to the church's power) and I believe this is optimal. A Sedevacantist traditional Catholic church with a State that legislates morality based on traditional Catholicism. Morality is probably the most debatable part of fascism but regardless, fascists views on objective morality kegislated by the State is a direct counter to left communist's embrace of liberal humanist subjective morality rooted in anti-Christianity.
-
Nationalism. This one everyone already understands about fascism. It's about building a duty toward the State and patriotism. Critical Race Theory, Anti-White, Anti-State and History Revision to demean the State would not be allowed. Public educations would be designed to build a sense of pride toward the State and purpose in improving the State rather than trying to tear it down. This is counter to international communism that believe all inequality must be ended by unjustly oppressing the competent people in order to unjustly elevate the less competent.
Conclusion: Fascism appears to provide the strongest counter to communism.
The strategy that anarchists and democrats are going to try and use now is to cause so much disruption near and up to election day that people (mostly republicans) don't vote. Even if Trump still wins, they'll use the disruption to suggest the election wasn't legitimate (this is standard color revolution tactics).
Optics mattered 6 months ago to not go too hard on people. Now is the time to go full authoritarian and completely crush any violent protests the second they start by arresting literally everyone and detaining them until after the election.
If the media starts bad media coverage then the correct move is to hit the media companies with every lawsuit possible.
Violent protests up to election day and on election day, even if they're in dem cities, shouldn't be allowed to happen.
What if someone mailed in a ballot early but decided they wanted to cancel it; however, they were in a state that doesn't allow for this.
What if they just showed up in person on election day and voted? Would they get charged for fraud? Do you think they'd have a decide chance of fighting it by saying in their defense the state didn't let them change their vote so they were forced into by ineffective state laws?
...Leaving Canada so I can come join you guys down south and help fight the commies!
If a poll shows republicans up, the republicans assume it's fake polling and that in reality it'll be a landslide Trump victory. Meanwhile, the left says it's fake polls and that democrats are really up. If the same polling company says democrats are up then all of a sudden the poll is correct to the democrats while the republicans still maintain fake polls and that Trump is still going to win.
Democrats are convinced they'll win Texas. Some Republicans think California is in play.
Polls are basically useless.
The international communism they are pushing needs to be fought harder than the USSR was. This Great Reset Stuff is absolutely sickening.
