AFAIK in Twitter you could create polls.
What if some twitter user with decent amount of followers or with some popular hashtag create a poll with a single question and Yes/No options:
Do you consider WEF a terrorist organisation?
- Yes
- No
Just that, nothing more, without any explanations and other stuff.
It does not matter what the results would be. What matters is openly and clearly throwing out an idea that WEF are terrorist organisation.
You could spend years trying to explain for wide audience that WEF is bad guys, but most will never accept your reasoning, because it is boring to read and you will use wrong language.
Most people minds thorougly adjusted to specific "tags" or "keywords". Even if they don't know what WEF is, don't care or do not agree, that keywords will trigger programmed response in their heads. And every time they will meet abbreviation "WEF", that subconcious association with "terrorism" will automatically pop up.
That poll will be, say, first phase. IDK, may be you have popular twitter account or know somebody who have it, try to do it. It will be perfect if it is some completely unrelated with any politics or conspiracies stuff, just some regular peasant account. Just a peasant ask a random question.
Poll is chosen because it is theoretically completely innocent, poll poster want to know opinion of others, not expressing something, so, theoretically, it will be very complex for them to find a reason for themselves to ban that poll, especially if results will be "in favor" to WEF. But for us, as I said, results does not matter.
May be put similar question on something like quora or something like that. Again, it does not matter what answers will be given, main goal is maximum audience coverage of question itself.
Second phase - all we need is to place "WEF" and "terrorist organisation" together at any occasion. It should not be pushed too hard, but every time you mention "WEF" in some public posts add "terrorists" or "terrorist organisation". Early or later that should began to spread, even through dumb virtue signallers who will remember that some three letters are "terrorists" so they should virtue signal on that three letters.
The idea is to use their programming, their language and their kind of tactic against them.
IMF, WHO and others could be treated in similar way.
Is it a stupid idea or there is something that could really work out in existing social networks swamp?
a) TER'ROR, noun [Latin terror from terreo, to frighten.]...all fears are outcome oriented. The few suggest outcomes so that the many consent to be afraid about them. In other words...consenting to suggested -ism fuels the terror.
b) OR'GAN, noun [Latin organum.] - "instrument of action"...living represents the instrumental reaction within the enacting process of dying. The few suggest organizations to tempt the many to ignore reacting as an organ (living) to their origin (process of dying).
c) organizing self; while resisting suggested -ism makes suggested terrorist organizations impotent.
...tempts the consenting many to quest for suggested answers; while ignoring the perceivable solution (process of dying) for every problem (living).
IDE'A, noun [Latin video; Greek; to see]...that implies perceivable inspiration; while your attempt to "throw out" represents the temptation to ignore perceivable inspiration for suggested information.
Reality already is open (to free will of choice) and clear (perceivable)...it's those within who willingly choose to ignore it for the suggestions by others.
a) suggested (information) over perceivable (inspiration) represents the program the few running within the memory of the many; through consent of the many to the suggestions of the few.
b) consent to the suggested word over perceivable sound allows the few to define; redefine and contradict all languages the many are using for miscommunication (reasoning against each other).
c) TAC'TICS, noun - "to appoint"...life isn't appointed; it represents inline (from inception towards death), hence within momentum. Put your finger into sand and you have a point; add motion to it and it becomes a line...life is always being moved from inception towards death.
d) choice exist within balance (need/want coexistence). Consenting to suggestions causes imbalance (want vs not want conflict). The conflict (reason) exists only within ones mind; put there by ones consent to suggestions by others.
The consent by each one of the many to suggested collectivism (togetherness) represents the ignorance of apartheid (being partial within whole). This ignorance causes the many vs few divide. The few represent the parasitic reaction to the ignorance of the many (living) towards their host (process of dying). Instead of resisting the perceivable host; the many consent to the suggesting parasites aka the happy merchants of temptation.
One (living) cannot destroy a controlled environment (process of dying) from within. The ignorance of the many about that is what allows the few to lure them into a suggested controlled environment (world wide web). Both for (want) vs against (not want) reactions only spend resistance towards suggested instead of growing it within perceivable. This is how controlled environments are used to farm the resistance of the consenting cattle.
Grow comprehension about being inline; while resisting the temptation of suggested online. Being on the line implies being carried towards outcome (death); while being inline implies being resistance (living) within temptation (process of dying). That's the struggle one needs to fight...for the sustenance of self; not against others.
What's more likely...being attacked by a jew or hurting yourself by consenting to what a jew suggests you to hurt yourself with? What if jew (kabbalistic phonetic for you) are doing it to yourself, which tempts others to exploit it?