>>251475

There are methods, but all have flaws and risks, even this one.

A good method is to slowly release info on the more prominent actors, taking the time to discredit them first.

Some folks will never be outed as bad. So be it. Can't afford to make any martyrs, you know.

Look, it took a long time for things to get this way, going to take a long time to fix it, just not THAT long. Think for a minute. JFK assassination. Most of us know the "official" story is BS. We know this. We know the truth, for the most part, yet there is no "proof" of it generally had (unless you dig for it). But, we do know, even though we don't "officially" know. Some will be just like that. Word will leak, the truth will be "unofficial". Like it or not, that's just how it is.

>>251595

This, x 10,000. If this even comes close to looking like a Republican takedown of Democrats, then it WILL fail, half the country will give "mad as hell" a whole new meaning, and the cabal will win. Or, we can do it slowly and methodically, and it flies easiy. Yes, there will be some public acknowledgement, has to be proof, otherwise it isn't known to have happened. No, some (many) will not be announced. Some of those come out later, some never. Bear in mind, a few notable ones will probably come out sooner than later, being from the public bunch. Yeah, I know, a shitty deal, but guess what. That's simply the way it is.

Too much risk of extreme civil disobedience if done otherwise. Sure, patriots will understand, even most normies will understand. But snowflakes and extreme leftists sure won't, and we need to keep that to 4-6%, not 40-60%.