>Would be interesting to cross-reference with the orgs at the center of the web. Although, important to keep in mind that CEOs, etc. are not the true power brokers. It's the individuals and families that own the companies and install the CEOs etc. Their ownership is hidden behind LLCs or corporate veils. Removing the CEOs is one thing but I don't see how we would detach the controlling owners.

Those are the kind of observations of importance.

Statistically speaking, 70% of wealthy (middle to upper) families lose their wealth by the second generation. Most of the people you're looking at are 'self-made' billionaires of 'this generation'.

You don't even need someone who is pro-whatever to takeover, just someone who is reckless or inconsequential with their money. The younger, the better.

>This is up to Trump.

He has Gina in-place, but the implicit Bush ties that are echoing over this scene is casting a shadow of doubt.

I'm experimenting with a contingency plan.

>Ron/Rand Paul have fought for similar only to continuously be rebuked by every other member of congress.

It means the other representatives need to be pressured to support this.

One thing the liberals do have to great advantage is they know how to cut off someone's money supply. If only people were so passionate about protesting that organisations that fund the politicians who keep money in the dark as the liberals are about the disturbing practice of abortion, we'd soon see a shift in power.

FOIA needs more teeth. Specifically, the 21 day limit should come with huge fines or punishment on breach - the CIA have stonewalled a great many of my requests for something like months. So-called 'trade secrets' and 'commercial interests' (given everything in a system based on capitalism is a trade, a secret or commercial, this basically excludes everything. It's like saying 'we won't tell you because it's secret and involves money' - it's too broad) needs to be removed as a protection consideration.

(Cont…)

(Cont…)

>My preferred option. Can only pray Trump intends to prior to leaving office. Don't think he will though. Would be important to arrest all Bad Actors after dissolution b/c they will reorganize elsewhere and do the same.

If he goes down this route, he needs at least half of the US military to have his back. The CIA are specialists in ousting leaders they don't like, whether by bullet, instigated riots/protests (think antifa), dirt (think Russia collusion), bribes (think Steel document) or falsehoods (literally anything they say).

The CIA is strongly prone to influence by whatever leader is in power, but at the moment it has terrible whistleblower protections. Greater whistleblower laws would allow more insiders to open up about rampant abuses - and the first port of call should be to pardon Jeffrey Stirling, a CIA whistleblower, no less.

>I'll refer to the Federal Reserve in my response. I don't think it necessarily entails destructive economic consequences. There weren't any when the institution was created. Also not when we went off gold standard, etc. Should be able to smoothly reverse engineer it.

You assume the FR won't try to fight back. You must assume all targets will fight like a cornered rat on a sinking ship. FR has a lot of high level bankers in it's ranks (the kind I'm encouraging you to deal with first), and is capable of pulling the $140 trillion debt card at any time. If the bankers in its backpocket were swatted first, it's only calling card is to call out the debt - but who is going to collect it if you've swatted the bankers?

It would however trigger a loss of confidence in the dollar. You'd need a new currency, you'd be looking at 1930s style stock market crash, and if that happens during Trump's presidency, what will the media scream?

Much better to leave that ticking timebomb for a corrupt democrat to pick up…

>I don't think that will be enough without dissolving the Federal Reserve. The power of issuing the currency is Primary. You can buy back control of everything no matter how many orgs we disrupt.

Printing money risks hyperinflation. Weimar Germany tried it and became Nazi Germany.

At a minimum, that's an easy thing to fix: executive order preventing it from printing any more notes.

But long term you need to be able to dismantle it in a way that minimises damage to the average American. If the CIA or FBI disappeared, no-one would notice. If the institution issuing your currency disappeared, well…

>We need a way to get the dirt we dig into the right hands aside from just hoping they read our bread.. Insiders, congressmen, business leaders, etc. Maybe anons can make a mailing list. Maybe anons can submit executive summaries (like the pizzagate ones) to FBI or other agencies.

There's no 'right' or 'wrong' hands (other than simply not the media: they are egariously corrupt and will 'silence' any report), there are however those who 'have a vested interest' and 'those that don't'.

For example, a border agent might find information partaining to the whereabouts of a human trafficking ring more useful, than say, a businessman.

A democrat might be more interested in a systemic abuse that aligns with their cause, and a republican their own.

Businessmen always crave dirt on the competition.

If you want to know who wants what, map out who their enemies are.

If you're not sure, I find a 'shotgun' approach works best - sending it simultaneously to all the parties you think are most likely to be interested.

(Cont…)

(Cont…)

Sometimes, making the perp aware that you know is sufficient to make them resign and flee. Making the perp's circle of friends know is enough to result in otracisation and outcast. Imagine if you found damning evidence of a democrat senator who was a pedophile - and emailed all of the democrats they work with? They would immediately recognise them as a liability to the group.

What outcome you get depends on who you mail to.

Resignation? - Friends and family (I'm sure the wife would love to know if they had been cheating)

Jail? - Police, agents

Death? - Other people in their criminal social circle (but excluding police/family/friends). Loose ends 'disappear quickly'.

When filing to police, always 'shotgun' vertically - junior officer, head of department, head of anti-corruption department.

That means if they don't act on it, they know each other - and you know - that they are corrupt. If anti-corruption department sees they don't open a case, they know they're corrupt, so on and so forth. Eventually, with enough damning evidence you highlight who does their job and who doesn't.

>Completely agree. MSM must be taken down. But how…

Finances.

The old media are dying. Advertising revenues are down. Their open attacks on YouTube, Twitter, alternate media are their attempts to stifle opposition, competition, freedom of reporting. Paywalls are put up in a desperate bid to garter more money. The Link Tax in Europe is another attempt but it's backfiring horribly.

There's many ways to disrupt their finances:

1) Stop using their services, openly boycott anyone who uses them, call for further boycotts

2) Adblockers, anything that kills their advertising model

3) Stop linking back to them wherein possible

4) Take on the organisations that finance them - if the main organisation starts losing money, they will seek to shed whatever is 'dead weight' - which means the media outlets themselves

5) Encourage the adoption of alternative media (especially community driven or donation based media)

6) Negate or criticise any attempts to curtail social media's (read: alternate media) freedoms

7) Actively encourage the social media outlets to defend themselves against encroachments and forced moderation

If you're in the UK, you're probably hit with the 'TV licence'. It's a pretty easy one to solve: stop watching TV, and thus you need not pay the licence. Openly support Tory efforts to dismantle the BBC (who get their funding exclusively from the TV licence).

Each media outlet has a different weakpoint. They all share the same one: lack of quality research.

(Cont…)

(Cont…)

If 4chan trolls want some fun, hoaxes tend to work very nicely at discrediting the media (because they never do their homework or research). I've already seen several stories fall apart because they didn't do a fact check. Hint for trolling: they like stories that openly confirm their biases, regardless of factual validity.

>Demand Anti-trust legislation?

The media monopoly is a huge issue, and one liberals would agree with you on, and it wouldn't be the first time a huge monopoly has been broken up (Standard Oil many decadesago).

It would be far more useful to mandate 'right of reply', that is, the right to have an opposing viewpoint or viewpoints actively hosted next to or with the content. This is something that is easy for many alternate media outlets to comply with (they already do - most encourage people to comment, sometimes they hold interviews), but it isn't so easy for media outlets to do with a 'controlled narrative'.

>We should make a list of influential people along with the best methods of getting our message to them.

Influence isn't the biggest marker to look for.

Agenda. Always look at their agenda. You want indecisives, people who sit on the fence, aren't wholly committed.

As for influence, ask yourself how secure or vulnerable they are - it's no good giving them info if they can be ousted in a heartbeat.

Sometimes, ignore the big names - aim at the people who are in with a good shot of taking their position of power, influence the next generation.

>We should agree on what our message is: what we want changed.

Gather together your most technical and legal minded anons and hash out one big debate. You will need people to act as contrarians whose sole job is to undermine your ideas in every way possible so you can secure them against loopholes, technicalities, or major flaws.

Try to get anons who have on-the-ground experience of whatever domain you want to change.

Media? Get journalists, bloggers, vloggers, commentators, news readers, presenters (we're talking in online videos, etc). Even source knowledge from statements made by people off-handedly online even if not part of your group. Raise as many issues as you can, propose as many solutions as you can, and whittle it to the 'most effective and easiest to implement'. Leave the others as general considerations for later.

>We should supply the reasons why and give the dirt we have dug.

If the evidence is damning, you should avoid colouring it with any opinions that might trigger 'entrenchment warfare'. If you've got a clear cut picture of Bill Clinton with his dick in a kid, send that with something like 'Uncovered evidence for your perusal'. Keep it neutral. Let them draw their own conclusions.

If they're of conscience, they'll know what exactly is going on and be disgusted by it. If it needs explanation, keep it short, neutral and to the point.

>We should have as many anons push for it to make our Voice heard.

Don't stick to just one message. A farmer can plant thousands of seeds only to have one sprout and turn into a crop.

Different messages work in different political climates.

Sometimes questions, sometimes answers, sometimes evidence.

Skeptics always need evidence. Dumb people answers. Smart people questions.

Don't narrow yourself to one political party. Doesn't matter who does it, so long as it succeeds.

Sometimes, the parties and groups with the greatest bias can be the strongest advocate of your idea so long as it's 'right' for them.

>Disagree. When re-runs of yogie bear are rating higher than CNN, it's obvious that profit isn't their motive. With the pentagon, CIA, FedReserve, foreign countries, etc backing them and when their only purpose is to brainwash at all costs, they dont care about finances. In communism, state-run propaganda never stops regardless. Its the same here. The point isnt to make money. It's to influence minds. MSM must be taken down by a different method. Anti-trust is a good start. Add in those tactic for removing the people at the top: Zucker. Get dirt, spread, force resignation.

That is an astute observation, NPR is certainly state funded. It's easily possible to get Republicans to vote to curtail the funding of something, although I imagine you are correct, black ops in the CIA likely give them the finances to pass over to the media and thus bypass the advertising issue.

We could split that up into a two-stage attack: have media outlets declare their funding sources (under the guise of 'ending Russian collusion' or whatever). Once we know who funds what, we can engage it, although this might be a double-edged sword if there are good outlets.

The only means that remain are to get people to work in such outlets (the Project Veritas approach) and such to leak information of their corruption out to the world, although, without a publishing medium this will make it difficult to get any traction on. The best way to handle propaganda outlets is to discredit them entirely in the eyes of the people. I don't think anyone trusts Sputnik news any more.

>This has probably been our greatest victory to date.

Poe's Law and the absurdity it generates is certainly working against them.

But I strongly suspect the hate speech laws would backfire on them greatly if it was constantly used against them at every turn. Imagine if you had a team of trolls to cry wolf at every news story they publish: 'how dare you associate muslims with ISIS?' 'how dare you call Trumpers white, I'm black and…', 'in your article, I noticed you used a male pronoun'.

Abuse the laws against them like they've been doing to us. Eventually they will either have to admit the laws don't work and repeal them, or capitulate and be neutered.

>Also banking. Anti-trust should be at top of list of our issues to push for.

Whilst I agree, this is an international issue and you are spanning very large corporate powerhouses.

They won't go lightly. That said, if you had an economic collapse handy and on standby…

>It sounds to me like the first step is organizing the information. Charting out those companies at the center of the web. Listing those individuals who we want to eliminate. Listing their enemies. Documenting dirt. Listing individuals with power/influence. Linking them to those who they can help bring down. Linking them to issues they can help support. Listing the problems we have and linking them to issues we want to support.

Precisely.

I can definitely assure you billionaires have a diverse set of opinions, especially if they're on the 'losing side' and being crushed by the others.

You'll likely want to find some billionaires who believe in freedom of speech, gun rights as a support base.

Don't be afraid of using a 'lesser evils' approach, because once the bigger evil is dealt with, we can always address a lesser evil.

>Any anons have a suggestion for type of program to use? Probably just a collaborative spreadsheet?

It might be an idea to assign yourselves different targets to research 'off-grid' first, and then collate it together at a later stage.

Whatever you post publicly they will be able to see, which will start the clock ticking as they scramble to remove any weaknesses or dirt identified.

Democrats/Media/Surveillance/ISP topics should be left until last minute as they're the ones with the biggest eyeballs on the internet.

Once an 'alert' goes out, the clock start ticking against you, and websites, evidence, pages will rapidly start disappearing.

For big corporations with a lot of users, focus on material that could be used in a class action lawsuit.

Mark Zuckerberg should be ousted shortly. He's the first to go. He's the toughest nut to crack.

Your biggest direct enemies are Google and Twitter, but they're also the enemies of the old media indirectly - which is why the old media has been trying supplant, usurp and insert themselves in.

For Twitter: freedom of speech laws (IBOR etc).

For Google: finances, ad revenue. Fewer searches through their engine, the better.

Both Twitter and Google are guilty of the same things Facebook has done. They even share login data.

Get Facebook, get them all. New laws for facebook = new laws for google, twitter.

I'll rephrase the last remark slightly differently, so you understand:

Imagine you had a cop at your door, and said 'open up, let me enter', but he had no warrant. You would turn him away, and he'd have to get a warrant.

The next day, an Amazon agent turns up, and they have the key to your house and a signed contract. They open up and enter your house, and the officer 'merely' follows them inside.

You protest to a court. What do you want the court's ruling to be?:

A) That signing a contract with a business does not waive your right to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, and thus the corporation cannot just 'enter your house' (read your laptop) and then just 'hand over the data' to law enforcement.

B) That signing a contract waives your right to Fourth Amendment protections, and therefore all a cop has to do is hire a corporation on their behalf to gain consent from you in the form of a very large document containing excessive legalese that you just 'tick a box' to.

Does Amazon need probable cause to enter your home?

Does Facebook need probable cause to obtain your data?

Think carefully about the loopholes before you.

They have been exploited for years.