New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
TallestSkil on scored.co
11 hours ago 5 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

Just the high value targets, though, right?
devotech2 on scored.co
10 hours ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
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
TallestSkil on scored.co
5 hours ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
* 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.**
Toast message