Consume Product

Killing our enemies isn’t effective?

"Not effective" in contrary to..... doing nothing?

I assure you, well placed assassinations of high-level targets would cause rapid, extreme changes. It would cause fear into them, it will rile up the populace, it will cause a flood of curiosity and information, which they will seek to suppress and control via (even more) censorship and propaganda, it will cause them to go tyrannical which people will oppose, and massive polarization.

It would be extremely effective.

And beating up random niggers and kikes would cause the same on a much smaller magnitude. It would embolden others to do the same, alter their views negatively towards niggers and kikes, people may start to group up.

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

Ah that makes sense, appreciate the info