You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
2
Breadpilled on scored.co
1 month ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
Was gonna say the same thing honestly.
Violence is needed to win. No shit. But solo vigilantism will do *literally* nothing to undo the current problem, while carrying significant risk to yourself. Even if you were a successful serial goodifier, with a body count of several hundred by the end of your life, never being caught, you wouldn't accomplish squat. Not in the face of *thousands* (millions?) coming in annually.
Violence has to be a later step, emerging from former steps of actually establishing some form of collective power. If it's your proposed step zero, then you're either blowing off steam without actually thinking it through, or you're just fedposting.
> But solo vigilantism will do literally nothing to undo the current problem
So? If anyone decides to do it, why does it bother you? There are acts I do not consider effective, but if Whites group up to beat niggers, kikes or subhumans, I find it good.
> Even if you were a successful serial goodifier, with a body count of several hundred by the end of your life, never being caught, you wouldn't accomplish squat.
How do you know? How can you be so sure about that? What if these several hundreds are high-level persons? Judges, police offers, high-level bureaucrats, CEOs, politicians? Do you really think it wouldn't completely unravel the entire country, with potential effects world-wide?
What do you think how daring judges will be after they saw 10 of their colleagues get crucified after acquitting feral niggers who killed and/or raped Whites?
What do you think how well AIPAC works when someone went from the top of the list downwards? Implying that taking AIPAC money comes with death?
> Not in the face of thousands (millions?) coming in annually.
If a country has a reputation of executing them on a large scale, *maybe* it won't be such a good place to move to. Something like that can drastically reduce 3rd world immigration. They exchange information way more than you think, and word gets around.
> If it's your proposed step zero, then you're either blowing off steam without actually thinking it through
It just means you disagree, and you accuse people you disagree with stupid or feds. What if - imagine that - there are objectively smarter people than you who recognize the extreme value violence can have if done correctly?
You're talking past me. I specifically said "solo vigilantism," which by definition doesn't include the notion of Whites grouping up. I also find that good when it happens.
> bother you
I'm not saying it bothers me. I was openly saying "good for him" after Luigi Mangione popped that honorary kike. But I am saying it's fatally ineffective at scale and shouldn't be advocated for as the primary solution.
> How do you know?
I was referring to a narrow scenario where someone decides to just indiscriminately kill as many nons as possible, which is clearly the spirit of the OP screenshot. Numerically, it would be shoveling shit against the tide, and I doubt it would make them fear coming here. They still kill far more of us, and the state actively protects them.
Now if the hundreds were theoretically all high ranking politicians or judges, then yeah. That'd have an effect. But be real. A single person isn't capable of that. That's John Wick LARP. Alone, they may take out a (singular) high-profile target, but they won't turn the tide themselves. That only happens through organized violence.
Whether or not that justifies encouraging all young White men to aspire to being solo vigilantes who each take out a ripe target in order to create a larger sum between them is a notion that I would fall on the condemnatory side of.
> If a country has a reputation of executing them on a large scale
Key term is large scale. That's oxymoronic in relation to solo vigilantism, and therefore supports my point that you need organization to achieve that end.
> you accuse people you disagree with stupid or feds
Not to be the grammar Nazi, but failing to iron out this ragebaited diction from your draft pairs poorly with an assertion of being the more intelligent party.
I'm not necessarily calling anyone stupid. I'm saying that advocating for the indiscriminate serial killing of nons as a single individual (which is again the implication of the OP and distinct from the extrapolations you're bringing into this post) is shortsighted. It's more likely for this to be motivated by justified rage rather than mere unintelligence, hence "blowing off steam." Case in point: you are reacting emotionally to my post because you perceived it as an attack on something close to home in your own worldview.
> the extreme value violence can have if done correctly
Once again, talking past me. The very first thing I said is "Violence is needed to win. No shit." And then I proceeded to argue for what "done correctly" means.
A single individual acting alone can potentially have an *impact.* But the actions of a group (or several groups) acting together are required in order to create *change.* That's my point.
> and therefore supports my point that you need organization to achieve that end.
It's clear that that is the final goal. But how will you get there? Have Whites be slaughtered and genocided by nons until they vote to deal with all nons?
What do you think how it will start? That suddenly EVERYONE is simultaneously in line with the same goals? Like a collective epiphany? No, it starts on a small level. Consider it stage 1. In order to get to stage 5, society has to go through all previous stages. You can't just skip stages. Most people do not act rationally on a large-scale and do not conform to clean processes. A certain messiness is inevitable.
> I'm saying that advocating for the indiscriminate serial killing of nons as a single individual
Well, if you focus on *indiscriminate*, then of course that changes things. But that's a qualifier that can make any action pointless. That's like driving arbitrarily or to a destination. The post didn't assert any specification though. So perhaps...
> pairs poorly with an assertion of being the more intelligent party.
...the key is to detect when someone is bullshitting? And you talk about *indiscriminate* action as if that's the point. You made that constraint up, it is a straw man so that you can easily argue against all of it.
> It's more likely for this to be motivated by justified rage rather than mere unintelligence, hence "blowing off steam."
See, to suppress your emotions, to choose to be "smart" about things and avoid conflict leads to certain defeat. How smart is it actually if you are a pushover who fears confrontation and rather surrenders than engages in violence? Who at least knows how to be imposing? Consider this on a collective level.
If we tolerate niggers killing us, raping us, jews to go full jewry mode again and again, how can you argue we are acting smartly here? It is cowardice covered in pretending to be smart and moral.
Literal niggers going arson and looting spree mode are better at this simply because they *do something*. It was completely aimless, they just chimped out. You'd think it is stupid, but it works. jews bring up their holocaust hoax all the time. Is it stupid? It works too. See it in an evolutionary perspective - if something works, it succeeds.
> you are reacting emotionally to my post
Emotions are irrelevant and arguing about it is pointless. Thus not a point, thus no "case in point." Don't waste our time with mind-reading bullshit.
> A single individual acting alone can potentially have an impact. But the actions of a group (or several groups) acting together are required in order to create change. That's my point.
That is obvious, self-evident even. The more people do X, the more X there is. Your points that mattered were only these two:
> But solo vigilantism will do literally nothing to undo the current problem
Violence is needed to win. No shit. But solo vigilantism will do *literally* nothing to undo the current problem, while carrying significant risk to yourself. Even if you were a successful serial goodifier, with a body count of several hundred by the end of your life, never being caught, you wouldn't accomplish squat. Not in the face of *thousands* (millions?) coming in annually.
Violence has to be a later step, emerging from former steps of actually establishing some form of collective power. If it's your proposed step zero, then you're either blowing off steam without actually thinking it through, or you're just fedposting.
So? If anyone decides to do it, why does it bother you? There are acts I do not consider effective, but if Whites group up to beat niggers, kikes or subhumans, I find it good.
> Even if you were a successful serial goodifier, with a body count of several hundred by the end of your life, never being caught, you wouldn't accomplish squat.
How do you know? How can you be so sure about that? What if these several hundreds are high-level persons? Judges, police offers, high-level bureaucrats, CEOs, politicians? Do you really think it wouldn't completely unravel the entire country, with potential effects world-wide?
What do you think how daring judges will be after they saw 10 of their colleagues get crucified after acquitting feral niggers who killed and/or raped Whites?
What do you think how well AIPAC works when someone went from the top of the list downwards? Implying that taking AIPAC money comes with death?
> Not in the face of thousands (millions?) coming in annually.
If a country has a reputation of executing them on a large scale, *maybe* it won't be such a good place to move to. Something like that can drastically reduce 3rd world immigration. They exchange information way more than you think, and word gets around.
> If it's your proposed step zero, then you're either blowing off steam without actually thinking it through
It just means you disagree, and you accuse people you disagree with stupid or feds. What if - imagine that - there are objectively smarter people than you who recognize the extreme value violence can have if done correctly?
You're talking past me. I specifically said "solo vigilantism," which by definition doesn't include the notion of Whites grouping up. I also find that good when it happens.
> bother you
I'm not saying it bothers me. I was openly saying "good for him" after Luigi Mangione popped that honorary kike. But I am saying it's fatally ineffective at scale and shouldn't be advocated for as the primary solution.
> How do you know?
I was referring to a narrow scenario where someone decides to just indiscriminately kill as many nons as possible, which is clearly the spirit of the OP screenshot. Numerically, it would be shoveling shit against the tide, and I doubt it would make them fear coming here. They still kill far more of us, and the state actively protects them.
Now if the hundreds were theoretically all high ranking politicians or judges, then yeah. That'd have an effect. But be real. A single person isn't capable of that. That's John Wick LARP. Alone, they may take out a (singular) high-profile target, but they won't turn the tide themselves. That only happens through organized violence.
Whether or not that justifies encouraging all young White men to aspire to being solo vigilantes who each take out a ripe target in order to create a larger sum between them is a notion that I would fall on the condemnatory side of.
> If a country has a reputation of executing them on a large scale
Key term is large scale. That's oxymoronic in relation to solo vigilantism, and therefore supports my point that you need organization to achieve that end.
> you accuse people you disagree with stupid or feds
Not to be the grammar Nazi, but failing to iron out this ragebaited diction from your draft pairs poorly with an assertion of being the more intelligent party.
I'm not necessarily calling anyone stupid. I'm saying that advocating for the indiscriminate serial killing of nons as a single individual (which is again the implication of the OP and distinct from the extrapolations you're bringing into this post) is shortsighted. It's more likely for this to be motivated by justified rage rather than mere unintelligence, hence "blowing off steam." Case in point: you are reacting emotionally to my post because you perceived it as an attack on something close to home in your own worldview.
> the extreme value violence can have if done correctly
Once again, talking past me. The very first thing I said is "Violence is needed to win. No shit." And then I proceeded to argue for what "done correctly" means.
A single individual acting alone can potentially have an *impact.* But the actions of a group (or several groups) acting together are required in order to create *change.* That's my point.
It's clear that that is the final goal. But how will you get there? Have Whites be slaughtered and genocided by nons until they vote to deal with all nons?
What do you think how it will start? That suddenly EVERYONE is simultaneously in line with the same goals? Like a collective epiphany? No, it starts on a small level. Consider it stage 1. In order to get to stage 5, society has to go through all previous stages. You can't just skip stages. Most people do not act rationally on a large-scale and do not conform to clean processes. A certain messiness is inevitable.
> I'm saying that advocating for the indiscriminate serial killing of nons as a single individual
Well, if you focus on *indiscriminate*, then of course that changes things. But that's a qualifier that can make any action pointless. That's like driving arbitrarily or to a destination. The post didn't assert any specification though. So perhaps...
> pairs poorly with an assertion of being the more intelligent party.
...the key is to detect when someone is bullshitting? And you talk about *indiscriminate* action as if that's the point. You made that constraint up, it is a straw man so that you can easily argue against all of it.
> It's more likely for this to be motivated by justified rage rather than mere unintelligence, hence "blowing off steam."
See, to suppress your emotions, to choose to be "smart" about things and avoid conflict leads to certain defeat. How smart is it actually if you are a pushover who fears confrontation and rather surrenders than engages in violence? Who at least knows how to be imposing? Consider this on a collective level.
If we tolerate niggers killing us, raping us, jews to go full jewry mode again and again, how can you argue we are acting smartly here? It is cowardice covered in pretending to be smart and moral.
Literal niggers going arson and looting spree mode are better at this simply because they *do something*. It was completely aimless, they just chimped out. You'd think it is stupid, but it works. jews bring up their holocaust hoax all the time. Is it stupid? It works too. See it in an evolutionary perspective - if something works, it succeeds.
> you are reacting emotionally to my post
Emotions are irrelevant and arguing about it is pointless. Thus not a point, thus no "case in point." Don't waste our time with mind-reading bullshit.
> A single individual acting alone can potentially have an impact. But the actions of a group (or several groups) acting together are required in order to create change. That's my point.
That is obvious, self-evident even. The more people do X, the more X there is. Your points that mattered were only these two:
> But solo vigilantism will do literally nothing to undo the current problem
> Violence has to be a later step
Both arguable, and I disagree.