Consume Product

Ah that makes sense, appreciate the info

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 would rile up the populace, it would cause a flood of curiosity and information, which they would seek to suppress and control via (even more) censorship and propaganda, it would cause them to go tyrannical which people will oppose, and cause 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, and people would be more inclined to start to group up against them.

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

> 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 has to be a later step

Both arguable, and I disagree.