During civil unrest over the summer, nearly in real time, a remarkable shift occurred: messaging began to get co-opted. Somehow, most protest videos and shootings pinged on right wing ecosystems before showing up anywhere else -- and by then, they were the main backlinked source.

Somehow, right wing strategists found a way to game amplification of content. This allowed them to enact a monopoly on the contextualization of that content. In concert, armed militant groups began to engage in guerrilla black operations at major protest sites around the US.

Civil society organizers never really found a way around the infiltration of their movements, and a sporadic wave of violent confrontations ensued. The entire process inevitably shifted the larger public discourse towards a favorability of Trump. Then, protests fizzled out.

If a second wave of civil uprisings ensues in the context of a disputed election, it will be up to movement organizers to shield against black operations by localized paramilitary groups. In the context of the first wave, it seems difficult to see how they'll achieve this.

Someone a while ago -- perhaps @heupchurch, or perhaps my brain is tired -- asserted the "boogaloo" theory as approached by the left is ineffectual insofar as the sides of civil war will inevitably be ill-defined, by virtue of extensive fed crossover in RW paramilitary networks.

We've already seen this play out in part with allegations of active clandestine fed involvement in manipulation of several key protest hotspots across the US. The potential for armed confrontation will necessarily involve more feds, and more fed tactics. Can organizers keep up?

I could say more, but the Medici family hasn't yet given me permission to return to my country estate in Florence, so I'll stay mum for the time being. https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1324539056563388417