Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2024 | Sundance
“Dear Sundance, could you please write an article that explains the policies that differentiate a GOPe RINO Establishment SIG/Bushie from an America First MAGA Patriot? It would be most beneficial to have a “litmus test” that can be easily used to compare candidates.”
At first blush this might sound like a familiar question that many would disregard. However, let me emphasize a key point often overlooked. The more severely you stop pretending, the more you realize the value of “litmus test” questioning. When you ask a certain type of question in front of an audience, things opinions can change very quickly.
Additionally, when you know the questions that hit the pretending triggers the hardest, then you know how to create the most uncomfortable situations for professional politicians and people in general who rely on their ability to obfuscate language. Lastly, when you know the material well enough to speak of the non-pretending dynamic in a way that doesn’t allow a pretentious lying response, it scares the heck out of the Alinsky/Lawfare tribe.
Brutally honest questioning is very valuable. That said, let me provide a few situational questions that will immediately reveal who you are talking to.
Litmus Question #1: Please, can you tell me your opinion of Robert Mueller?
If the (Republican) respondent replies with any positive about the character, action, purpose and intent of Robert Mueller in the role of special counsel, you can immediately qualify the respondent as a participant in the fraud. There is only one honest response about anything Mueller. Everyone in DC knows Mueller was the coverup operation. No one, not one single person, in Washington DC does not know Mueller’s intent.
Litmus Question #2: Was the 2020 Election manipulated?
If the (Republican) respondent replies with a long-winded answer, implying that some form of electoral manipulation might have been possible, you can immediately qualify the person as a participant maintaining fraud. Pretending out of fear or favor is still pretending.
That’s it. Look them straight in the eye, stand your ground, tell them you can see exactly who they are – then stop talking. The discomfort in the room will always lay heaviest upon the shoulders of the deceivers. You will likely be able to hear a pin drop. The Truth Has No Agenda.
Also, one larger part (with multiple aspects) of the political dynamic is very important to keep at the forefront of your mind. In all the important ways that matter, you know more about the subject matter of corruption within politics than the politicians you might question about it.
You know more than any Republican member of Congress and/or their staff, research team or investigative group. You know more about all of it in the large picture and the granular details than they do. It does not matter what their position within the DC system or what committee they sit upon, you know more.
You, the person reading this, knows more about intelligence system corruption than any member of the intelligence community Gang of Eight that sits in charge of oversight. YOU KNOW MORE, than any person in any DC silo, and that is by design.
What people do not understand about DC is that only the entities within the DC system are permitted to engage in accountability. Meaning, in the world of Republicans, Congress (or any other institution) cannot accept information from outside their silo operations.
Put simply, if a Republican congressional staffer does not originate the raw material evidence that highlights a corrupt activity, then the evidence does not exist. Only the people within the silo system are permitted to discover information that targets any other silo participant. This action/sequence is by design.
The Republican participants in DC will tell you that process is in place to ensure that no goofball material or evidence comes into the system. However, in reality the purpose of this rule is to block any negative information from permeating the silo system. The silo construct protects the silo inhabitants, and no detrimental information or crowdsourcing of evidence is permitted by allowed to be used by Republicans.
The Democrats do not hold themselves to this standard, and again this is part of the design.
The Democrat Party system exists to assemble power. The Republican wing of the system exists to assemble money. Democrats want power. Republicans want money. The policy of Democrats drives their donor activity. The donor activity of Republicans drives their policy.
When Senator Chuck Schumer wants Republican votes to secure policy wins, he buys those votes from Mitch McConnell. When Senator Mitch McConnell wants Democrat votes to secure policy on behalf of the corporations who fund his team, McConnell sells policy (amendments) to Chuck Schumer.
Re-read that prior paragraph to understand how Schumer in majority gains policy victories, and Schumer in minority gains policy victories.
Democrats want power (policy), Republicans want money. This is the nature of two wings of the UniParty and the core reason why people are starting to see how legislative policy shifts left regardless of which party is in power.
In order to maintain the process of gaining affluence, the Republicans within the silo system have rules that block information from reaching them. This is best described as the technical process that creates a Republican system of intentional willful blindness.
The Republicans do not want to be holding specific evidence of corruption because they cannot sell that; ergo, it has no value. This is why Republicans do not factually construct any oversight mechanisms. (See: Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi, Spygate, Govt weaponization, etc).
Instead, the leadership of the Republicans writes out a list of what topics are valid for conversation and what topics are not. Republican members then stick to the guidelines of the topics and nothing more.
In this era of great pretending, make them uncomfortable by not participating.
Centinel2012 