pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @xz 26 Oct \ parent \ on: Uh, Oh: New York Times, Washington Post Signal Post-Election Crackdown Politics_And_Law
Sounds a bit OTP. Where does this risk come from? Does it suggest that astroturfed antifa-like gangs might start whining because they were outvoted by the popular vote?
antifa-like gangs might start whining
Imagine 10's of thousands of MS13 adjacent sleeper cell members being activated to simply cause a chaos that prevents a peaceful transfer of power.
It wouldn't take but a few dozen of them with .50 cal guns you can buy at most gun shops to shoot up electrical substations and send much of the country into a humanitarian disaster.
Add in dirty bombs
Imagine a "leave the world behind" scenario. Great movie btw.
Hostage situation. Military is the only way.
reply
I see your point.
But the Harvard take seems prejudice ( I didn't read the NYT) but as Matt Taibii says there: We can't just let voters choose? The idea that this will happen without astroturfing is the point.
To cause chaos, to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, implies that it would be astroturfed like the BLM campaign, it sows dischord, mostly everyone is disenfranchized through an engineered crisis.
Policy does not change on day one. There might be security pressures if sweeping changes in policy are enacted. It would be naive for any group to think that a change in leadership is not needed right now.
PS. I dig Julia Roberts, thx for the recommend.
reply
The idea that this will happen without astroturfing
Depends how we define astroturf, if we simply say orchestrated then yes you're right it absolutely will be orchestrated. You and I might realize this, but that makes us the fringe 1-3% and not who the article is intended for.
I clarify to say orchestrated because of the need to price in a 5th gen warfare scenario. Things could get actually messy simply because the enemy gets a vote. That would count as orchestrated still imo, but not quite as controlled as astroturf.
security pressures
We're already in Thucydides trap, the threat of policy change creates security pressures which justify the policy change which force the security pressures.
reply
Yes, I meant orchestrated. I could not think of a better word, and I suppose this has importance. Just as some might say 9-11 was orchestrated, the consequences of what is deemed a questionable and implausible narrative in the rear-view mirror, and ultimately filed under conspiritorial, also has consequences in the long run. Usually, a censerous environment and an emperor with no clothing.
Thucydides
That's a good point. Thing is, I think this can work in both ways. I.e, the threat of no change brings it's own slower, inevitable ensured demise. Isn't change the only constant? I do like the Greek tales and the wisdom derived. According to the trap, who fears who? I'm sure that equally, power interests are astute at playing on both sides of the field. I guess that makes things dangerous, but in a sense, nothing new neither.
reply
nothing new neither
Bingo, I think a lot of people reject conspiratorial views on what happens today because they don't know their history
How many times does the world changed drastically in a lifetime? How well telegraphed are those things?
This election feels like it's the catalyst for a Cuba-JFK / 1971 - Watergate / 9.11- GFC / Pandemic scale "weeks when decades happen" series of events
And just like those events it wont be random
reply
reply
Just my spergy brain
reply
reply
Yep, the border narrative definitely resembles past conditioning operations, just like the years of pandemic preparedness concerns
If there's some orchestrated sleeper cell event, it won't be totally unbelievable because they'll have years of media to say we told you so
reply