You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
4
devotech2 on scored.co
13 hours ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)1 child
Individual violence largely accomplishes nothing unless it's a hit against high level targets, like Luigi Mangione killing the ceo of UnitedHealth, which served amazing propaganda value. Even this, however, had a middling overall effect. Otherwise, you are throwing your life away to be used as propaganda against your movement for largely no reason. There's a reason deep state glowniggers actively encourage angry white teenagers to carry out violence on an individual level. For example: what did Brenton Tarrant actually accomplish long term? Literally nothing, rather he ended up serving the interests of the people that he hated. Rather than saving his nation from its invasion, his face and memory is used as a catalyst for its continued destruction, and if you're against these things, you're "just like him"
With all that being said, *group* violence, organized violence, is in a completely different ballpark altogether. It does work, it has been proven to work countless times by both the reds and fascists, and others like the IRA, hezbollah, etc, and it's forceful enough to make meaningful things happen. But theres a caveat, Indiscriminate group violence does not necessarily do much better than Indiscriminate individual violence and can oftentimes in fact be worse (provided rhat said group isnt large enough, in the case that it is, such as the bolsheviks, it does not really matter). Targeted and controlled group violence is the most clear path to political victory that functionally exists. I would point everyone towards reading the works of Georges Sorel who was effectively the founding father of fascism, and who wrote about exactly this. Or, another example to look at: the provisional IRA, who were absolutely terrifying to the British public, government, and army for almost 30 years, while being a collection of only a few thousand (maybe) vs the interests of several million and the srmed forces of both Britain and ireland, and who only "failed" (not really, but were rather forced to negotiate terms favorable to both sides) because they didn't have a complex counter espionage program.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
11 hours ago5 points(+0/-0/+5Score on mirror)1 child
> high level targets
Every. Single. Last. One. Of. Them. Supports. It.
>if you're against these things, you're "just like him"
Sounds like the problem of everyone who listens rather than the problem of the man who did something about it. It’s not his fault you (nondescript third-person pronoun) are so much of a coward that you’ll allow your own genocide instead of being called words that hurt your feelings.
>Indiscriminate group violence does not necessarily do much better
All. Of. Them. Are. Complicit.
>Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
It's not a debate about morals, it's a debate simply about what is actually possible at all. We exist on the periphery of politics. As such, we don't have any power whatsoever to just start eliminating every single group of people we don't like. A couple of squads of people with guns, as of present, dont have the capability to do this either because whats destroying the west is institutionalized. Being methodical is a requirement. Change can, in fact, be forced through fear.
*Individual* level violence just doesn't work, full stop. And it never did. Usually, it has the exact opposite outcome, and you end up with a harder crackdown on society after it happens, whether it's successful or not. Sometimes it has propaganda value, sometimes it doesn't, but the outcome is almost invariably negative.
The point at which you can feasibly start physically removing these elements is the point at which whatever group you're represented by has amassed enough power that this can be reasonably carried out. If we look back in history to, for example, the SA, they did use violence, and they used it very willingly. However, the breadth of scope of the NSDAP's willingness to use political violence was an evolving one, which started as merely self defense in the early 1920s and became an offensive movement when it had amassed enough manpower to actually see this through to the end. If the SA had attacked synagogues and communist rallies in the early 1920s, every one of them would have been arrested and sentenced to death because it would have been easy for the government to do it. Or they would have just been killed off by the reds.
But Weimar Germany is actually a poor analogy when regarding the beliefs and interests of the people living in it, because they were radicalized by war, and were much more willing to join the SA, or the red front likewise. A better analogy is, again, the provisional IRA. The Irish people were not sufficiently radicalized themselves, but a couple thousand people had the entirety of the British establishment on their heels and scared to go to sleep at night because the IRA had the capability to make a bomb go off in seemingly any government building in the British isles, and they were better fighters than trained British soldiers. And the IRA could have won, and they were winning, but they did not button up their operation properly and so British saboteurs were able to sneak into it. Well, now we've learned the lesson. But that sets a good precedent for the future.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
* How much *more* purchasing power do white currencies need to lose before white people will fight back. **Give a percentage.**
* To what percentage of any given *local* or *regional* population do whites need to fall in order for whites to fight back. **Give a percentage.**
* How many *more* (or which *specific*) remaining white social conventions need to be upturned by jewish mandate in order for whites to fight back. **Give specific examples of the conventions.**
With all that being said, *group* violence, organized violence, is in a completely different ballpark altogether. It does work, it has been proven to work countless times by both the reds and fascists, and others like the IRA, hezbollah, etc, and it's forceful enough to make meaningful things happen. But theres a caveat, Indiscriminate group violence does not necessarily do much better than Indiscriminate individual violence and can oftentimes in fact be worse (provided rhat said group isnt large enough, in the case that it is, such as the bolsheviks, it does not really matter). Targeted and controlled group violence is the most clear path to political victory that functionally exists. I would point everyone towards reading the works of Georges Sorel who was effectively the founding father of fascism, and who wrote about exactly this. Or, another example to look at: the provisional IRA, who were absolutely terrifying to the British public, government, and army for almost 30 years, while being a collection of only a few thousand (maybe) vs the interests of several million and the srmed forces of both Britain and ireland, and who only "failed" (not really, but were rather forced to negotiate terms favorable to both sides) because they didn't have a complex counter espionage program.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Every. Single. Last. One. Of. Them. Supports. It.
>if you're against these things, you're "just like him"
Sounds like the problem of everyone who listens rather than the problem of the man who did something about it. It’s not his fault you (nondescript third-person pronoun) are so much of a coward that you’ll allow your own genocide instead of being called words that hurt your feelings.
>Indiscriminate group violence does not necessarily do much better
All. Of. Them. Are. Complicit.
>Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
Just the high value targets, though, right?
*Individual* level violence just doesn't work, full stop. And it never did. Usually, it has the exact opposite outcome, and you end up with a harder crackdown on society after it happens, whether it's successful or not. Sometimes it has propaganda value, sometimes it doesn't, but the outcome is almost invariably negative.
The point at which you can feasibly start physically removing these elements is the point at which whatever group you're represented by has amassed enough power that this can be reasonably carried out. If we look back in history to, for example, the SA, they did use violence, and they used it very willingly. However, the breadth of scope of the NSDAP's willingness to use political violence was an evolving one, which started as merely self defense in the early 1920s and became an offensive movement when it had amassed enough manpower to actually see this through to the end. If the SA had attacked synagogues and communist rallies in the early 1920s, every one of them would have been arrested and sentenced to death because it would have been easy for the government to do it. Or they would have just been killed off by the reds.
But Weimar Germany is actually a poor analogy when regarding the beliefs and interests of the people living in it, because they were radicalized by war, and were much more willing to join the SA, or the red front likewise. A better analogy is, again, the provisional IRA. The Irish people were not sufficiently radicalized themselves, but a couple thousand people had the entirety of the British establishment on their heels and scared to go to sleep at night because the IRA had the capability to make a bomb go off in seemingly any government building in the British isles, and they were better fighters than trained British soldiers. And the IRA could have won, and they were winning, but they did not button up their operation properly and so British saboteurs were able to sneak into it. Well, now we've learned the lesson. But that sets a good precedent for the future.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
* To what percentage of any given *local* or *regional* population do whites need to fall in order for whites to fight back. **Give a percentage.**
* How many *more* (or which *specific*) remaining white social conventions need to be upturned by jewish mandate in order for whites to fight back. **Give specific examples of the conventions.**