Minnesota ICE Resistance: Creating a powder keg of citizen vs. federal law enforcement
James Lindsay on X on what is going in Minnesota as “Classic Bolshevik moves using Soros’s media-based reflexive dialectic as the mechanism.”
“Your target’s reaction is your real action,”
Minnesota has provided us with yet another good example of the Communist and radical principle of “your target’s reaction is your real action,” which is a key strategic tactic for them.
For many months, ICE and other federal law enforcement, not to mention Trump himself, have been made out to be the kinds of tyrants that have to be stopped at almost any cost, including by reckless citizen actions, like obstructing law enforcement, resisting arrest, throwing things at police, etc.
All of it is framed out in ridiculous false narratives designed to “come true” at the moment of crisis, at which point they will seize control of the narrative to drive specific, pre-planned action. In this case, the false narratives are not just about the status of federal law enforcement and ICE but also about their alleged unwillingness to work with or coordinate with local and state police who have, behind the scenes, been ordered to be non-compliant, if not softly antagonistic.
This is called “Operational Preparation of the Environment” in the unrestricted or political warfare environment in which radicals today do their work. The model they’re using is called “reflexivity” and is George Soros’s “shoelace dialectic” (his terms) as a theory of change.
The goal was always to create antagonistic situations between citizens, who can be framed as fighting a noble anti-oppression cause, and ICE, who can be framed as engaging in unwelcome oppression.
By ordering local and state police to be uncooperative, not only do the operations fall more heavily on federal law enforcement, but also several other things are achieved. For examples,
a) Locals can be led to believe federal law enforcement is operating outside of the bounds of the more local law and against the wishes of their state/locality, which they are led to believe holds sovereignty;
b) This generates a conflict between the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution and local and state law enforcement that citizens are led to believe renders the federal LEOs out of line;
c) Local and state police aren’t usually openly antagonistic, therefore creating an illusion of resistance to the feds that they cannot actually fulfill because of their roles, shifting responsibility onto (activist) citizens;
d) Circumstances where local citizens are believed to be on the side of the rightful law against oppressive alien law (and may expect diminished or no consequences for resisting the “alien” law, even though it is actually supreme).
There are more we could think of, I’m sure, but a key point is that the leadership in states like Minnesota (and California, etc.) know they’re creating this powder keg of citizen versus federal law enforcement (here: ICE) while spreading various agitating narratives like about fascism, “protecting communities and neighbors,” etc. They are the primary willful bad actors in this situation, together with some professional and other paid agitators who take things to the next level on the streets.
Goal is to get citizens to create anarchy and chaos
The goal is to get citizens to obstruct and even threaten or attack ICE, which in effect creates a decision dilemma for ICE/federal law enforcement. Either the feds can stand down and thus negate the Supremacy Clause and fail to do their jobs, or they can act within their authority and seek to arrest and detail the people obstructing their lawful mandate that the states are resisting less directly and more through engineered fuckery (for lack of a better word).
Once that happens enough times, statistics kind of take over.
Some proportion of those antagonistic encounters will go sideways. Eventually, as happened yesterday, you’ll find a federal law enforcement (ICE) agent do something, either unreasonably or reasonably with sufficient ambiguity (as here), to frame it as an illegitimate overreaction and initiate the reflexive campaign on what looks like firm footing.
Soros’s reflexivity dialectic (his word for it) works by generating the conditions for chaos and then placing down “guideposts” through the chaos once it arises. He says that himself in The Alchemy of Finance (1992) in the first chapter. The goal is to generate chaotic environments in which “historical change” (his term) can occur and then to shape the outcome of that change when it arrives by leading people to believe certain things about the chaotic environment they’re in that gets them to take specific actions they wouldn’t otherwise take.
In this case, the points of the reflexive campaign are really obvious because they keep saying them over and over and over: get ICE out of Minnesota (and thus protect their rampant fraud racket) and impeach Secretary Noem (take down a political rival so they can demand a more compliant replacement). Classic Bolshevik moves using Soros’s media-based reflexive dialectic as the mechanism.
Tim Walz “creates a constitutional crisis and is, frankly, direct insurrection he should be prosecuted for”
Further, as Governor Tim Walz made clear, he’s willing to try to induce a profound crisis by naming Minnesota as being “at war” with the federal government and threatening to attempt to deploy the National Guard against federal law enforcement (in violation of their Constitutional oath), which creates a constitutional crisis and is, frankly, direct insurrection he should be prosecuted for. This puts the Trump Administration in a similar, higher decision dilemma: deal with Walz on these terms and trigger a huge falsely justified reaction on the Left or let him get away with what amounts to literal insurrection to avoid that trap. We called this same dilemma the “Trump Trap” back in 2020, but the stakes are actually higher now, even though the situation isn’t as heated.
So, there’s the Minnesota ICE Floyd psyop in a nutshell. They’ve used the reaction of the ICE officer (shooting a woman he believed for good reason was posing an imminent threat) to justify not just this campaign but the direct actions in the streets (which were also coordinated, funded, and ready to be activated in the same way the National Guard is on standby), and with a certain population, most of whom lean Left, it will work. That’s what’s happening.
From