Is my intuition on this right? My sense is that we have been given a "box" (via Q) to play in as part of The Plan. We have had to learn our roles and their boundaries in a kind of osmotic process. We cannot be given direct and explicit orders, but that doesn't stop us forming a fully functioning militia in an information war. Our contribution is very real and meaningful, just it has to be aligned to the overall outcome.

The "box" keeps us from straying into areas that are unhelpful — so we don't hunt down anything about covert operational activities on our side or publicise then, for instance. We refrain from anything that could give the other side cause to paint us as violent or unlawful. We anchor this in the pursuit of equal justice under the rule of constitutional law, and leave many of our personal beliefs aside for that goal.

What is "in scope" and "out of scope" for the role of an anon?

Since your essays a few years back I've followed your lead in many things.
Martin, If it ain't broke don't fix it.
WWG1WGA

In response Martin Geddes to his Publication

Only people mentioned by @johnny1x in this post can reply

No replys yet!

It seems that this publication does not yet have any comments. In order to respond to this publication from Wlim Elgof, click on at the bottom under it