>why
It’s illegal.
It’s illegal.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
18 comments:
Every electronic communication is monitored. Every meeting space is compromised. The skinhead gangs of the 80s and 90s are thoroughly destroyed. Any "White resistance" movement would be crushed before it began and the ones you see are fed honeypots or informants taking a plea deal to save their own asses.
There will be no organizing. No "tribe and train" and no help coming. We are on our own.
There will be no organizing. No "tribe and train" and no help coming. We are on our own.
Old school communication methods can be used. Organizing can be restricted to small groups where vetting people is much easier. Small groups can inspire others. We are talking about local vigilantism, not taking over countries. It's just one small front in the fight, but an important one that is completely missing.
I'm going to give the most brutally honest answer in this thread:
Even for people who are 100% awake, racially aware and cognizant of the jewish question, they aren't actually invested enough in the "survival of the White race" that they'd be willing to die or be jailed for life for it.
Even the most based person alive has his own "bread and circuses." i.e. something in life that brings enough pleasure and meaning that it gets him out of bed in the morning to continue experiencing it. We aren't meaningfully different from the cattle class in that way. For right wingers it's just usually things that are non-degenerate. Being in nature, sleeping with your wife, enjoying the fruits of a successful business, whatever. (Not always, though. The Degenerate Right is a real thing, not just a meme.)
It can be simultaneously true that such a person genuinely cares about their race and does not want to see it go extinct, while also not having that desire be strong enough for them to sacrifice the pleasures they already have. But the fact that his pleasures may be wholesome and that he says "nigger" on the internet without shame lets him convince himself that he isn't indicted by that reality.
Unlike the countless other people on the online right that this describes, I'm willing to attribute it to myself bluntly. The greatest goals in my life and things I'm passionate about don't have anything to do with the survival of the White race. Therefore, I'm likely never going to do anything. It's how it is.
Love him or hate him, u/TallestSkil is correct to consistently frame this matter as an aggressive binary. You're either out there [REDACTED]ing the people responsible for this, or you're not. And if you're not, you're *ultimately* fine with this all happening even if you, perhaps honestly, claim that you have a strong dislike of it and it makes you angry.
I might make an amendment that being a man with a family somewhat exempts you from this notion. It's wrong to go throw your life away for any reason if you have those people depending on you. However, we're past the point where this can be held up as the sole standard, as was once considered the case. It's already been pretty well established that we lose the breeding war in a vacuum, and many people will try to zero in on "finding a godly wife and raising White kids" as their exclusive goal in order to remove the impetus from themselves to perform the alternative, even though they're quietly aware that their chances of finding that godly wife are extraordinarily low to the point where it's flimsy as a deferred excuse.
Reproduction, specifically successful, *dynasty-forming* reproduction, is something that has always been gated to the absolute cream of the genetic crop, and that's more true now than ever before. And the reality is that the majority of us simply do not make the cut today, even if we would have several generations ago when the bar was lower. It's a luxury caste with a membership status largely determined at birth, not something you can will your way into.
On the other hand, vigilantism is F2P. If you're a free, able-bodied man, you can go do it. But the desire to influence change has to honestly outweigh what rewards life will continue to give you if you don't.
*However, there is an asterisk. For someone who has a family, if the state ever acts in such a manner that his family is directly threatened (such as with the trans stuff in the UK,) the family man now *must* fight back. He has no choice lest he risk the certain damnation of his soul. The same mechanism that calls him to avoid violence where the vigilante is invited to it can call him *to* violence with thrice the urgency if circumstances change. He no longer gets the option to opt out that is available to the man who is alone, so it isn't a total get out of jail free card.
Even for people who are 100% awake, racially aware and cognizant of the jewish question, they aren't actually invested enough in the "survival of the White race" that they'd be willing to die or be jailed for life for it.
Even the most based person alive has his own "bread and circuses." i.e. something in life that brings enough pleasure and meaning that it gets him out of bed in the morning to continue experiencing it. We aren't meaningfully different from the cattle class in that way. For right wingers it's just usually things that are non-degenerate. Being in nature, sleeping with your wife, enjoying the fruits of a successful business, whatever. (Not always, though. The Degenerate Right is a real thing, not just a meme.)
It can be simultaneously true that such a person genuinely cares about their race and does not want to see it go extinct, while also not having that desire be strong enough for them to sacrifice the pleasures they already have. But the fact that his pleasures may be wholesome and that he says "nigger" on the internet without shame lets him convince himself that he isn't indicted by that reality.
Unlike the countless other people on the online right that this describes, I'm willing to attribute it to myself bluntly. The greatest goals in my life and things I'm passionate about don't have anything to do with the survival of the White race. Therefore, I'm likely never going to do anything. It's how it is.
Love him or hate him, u/TallestSkil is correct to consistently frame this matter as an aggressive binary. You're either out there [REDACTED]ing the people responsible for this, or you're not. And if you're not, you're *ultimately* fine with this all happening even if you, perhaps honestly, claim that you have a strong dislike of it and it makes you angry.
I might make an amendment that being a man with a family somewhat exempts you from this notion. It's wrong to go throw your life away for any reason if you have those people depending on you. However, we're past the point where this can be held up as the sole standard, as was once considered the case. It's already been pretty well established that we lose the breeding war in a vacuum, and many people will try to zero in on "finding a godly wife and raising White kids" as their exclusive goal in order to remove the impetus from themselves to perform the alternative, even though they're quietly aware that their chances of finding that godly wife are extraordinarily low to the point where it's flimsy as a deferred excuse.
Reproduction, specifically successful, *dynasty-forming* reproduction, is something that has always been gated to the absolute cream of the genetic crop, and that's more true now than ever before. And the reality is that the majority of us simply do not make the cut today, even if we would have several generations ago when the bar was lower. It's a luxury caste with a membership status largely determined at birth, not something you can will your way into.
On the other hand, vigilantism is F2P. If you're a free, able-bodied man, you can go do it. But the desire to influence change has to honestly outweigh what rewards life will continue to give you if you don't.
*However, there is an asterisk. For someone who has a family, if the state ever acts in such a manner that his family is directly threatened (such as with the trans stuff in the UK,) the family man now *must* fight back. He has no choice lest he risk the certain damnation of his soul. The same mechanism that calls him to avoid violence where the vigilante is invited to it can call him *to* violence with thrice the urgency if circumstances change. He no longer gets the option to opt out that is available to the man who is alone, so it isn't a total get out of jail free card.
Part of the issue is you cant talk about it in anyway. Many people get caught for crimes due to a digital trail or from someome else knowing about it and caving to poloce pressure because they do have something to lose and dont know how police operate. Any crime requires a lot of prep to not get caught and little overlooked details, like taking your phone or dropping something at the scene, will fuck you over. You could bring a flashlight with no finger prints but did you touch the batteries when you put them in? Prints. Did you sweat, spit, or bleed at the crime scene? DNA. Is it personal? Paper trail.
Even here we have posters that constantly bitch about people doing nothing but what wpuld happen if someone said "i did X." Those posters would report them.
If you want vigilante justice, start prepping, start planning, and accept losing everything as a potential cost of your actions.
The other problem is comforts. Even with our nations burning, we have food, we have shelter, we have sexual release. We lack meaning and purpose. We lack a system that supports us. Even if you dont have the stomach for vigilante justice, do you have resources to help, hide, feed, or equip the warriors?
Even here we have posters that constantly bitch about people doing nothing but what wpuld happen if someone said "i did X." Those posters would report them.
If you want vigilante justice, start prepping, start planning, and accept losing everything as a potential cost of your actions.
The other problem is comforts. Even with our nations burning, we have food, we have shelter, we have sexual release. We lack meaning and purpose. We lack a system that supports us. Even if you dont have the stomach for vigilante justice, do you have resources to help, hide, feed, or equip the warriors?
Once upon a time, the mob was a potent political force because it could, when roused, physically destroy the government; bureaucrats and politicians, both.
Who would you target? Who is the one big guy that is keeping all the bad stuff going? There isn't really anyone like that; it's more a cabal of mercurial figures convincing us to kill ourselves.
Violence does nothing when you yourself are the enemy.
Who would you target? Who is the one big guy that is keeping all the bad stuff going? There isn't really anyone like that; it's more a cabal of mercurial figures convincing us to kill ourselves.
Violence does nothing when you yourself are the enemy.
Whites are sufficiently contented with entertainment and are individualized enough not to do this. Crime is regarded as such a non-issue - or simply overblown Far-Right propaganda - for so many Whites that they find ideologies that advocate for defunding or even abolishing the police and abolishing prisons to be desirable.
Somebody else mentioned Christianity and Islam. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's Latin America where 'autodefensas' are the most prevalent and well organized, not Muslim countries.
Furthermore, crime isn't as pervasive in most White neighbourhoods as it is in Latin American countries. It took years to decades of living under fear of cartels before autodefensas really got going, and decades of living under crime before some Brazilians started to develop similar vigilante behaviours (e.g. ramming their cars into the getaway bikes of robbers). Before that, the Brazilian attitude was just one of pure apathy, and largely still is.
I've seen videos of Brazilians being shot dead: many spectators don't even flee from the sound of gunshots like White people would. Most White people would scream and run without conscious thought. My suspicion is that they're so well adapted to a crime-ridden environment that crime is no longer shocking: they neither scream nor run, and barely even look in the general direction. Rather, they simply continue going about their day.
Some Brazilians also have an attitude that is like this: 'Most crime only happens to people who are involved in drugs and gang life. Since I am not involved in drugs and gang life, I do not need to worry about it, it will not affect me.' That is, of course, simply another rationalization for their adaptation. Plenty of students and other people unlikely to be involved with drugs and gang life also end up being shot dead.
Of course, adaptation can only go so far. For some, crime became so pervasive that it led to anger and fear. I think that contributed to Bolsonaro's election victory, and vigilante activity increased at that time. Come to think of it, I think it has probably decreased again, probably because these people felt emboldened by Bolsonaro, whereas the return of Lula to the presidency has removed those feelings.
The other main point is that vigilantism is deeply anti-Western: since the Enlightenment, Whites have liked to govern themselves by the 'rule of law'. Taking the law into your own hands has been seen as wrong for centuries.
These factors and others all lead to the same conclusion. People are too engrossed in entertainment and work to really be aware of the crime around them. Even if they are not, people are too individualized to really care about it until it affects them or those closest to them. Even if it did affect them or those closest to them, the prevailing political culture and ideologies are against vigilantism, and usually strongly prefer to relegate all such matters to a standing police force. Even if it wasn't, crime isn't perceived as pervasive enough to justify adapting that political culture. Even if crime got out of hand such that some started to feel that way, most people would simply pathologically rationalize why they should hold on to their unjustifiable apathy.
You have to go through or somehow around all of these hoops and others before vigilantism could become normalized among Whites. It is thus no surprise that there is not a single White country in which all of these hoops have been passed such that vigilantism is actually normalized. I don't recall once a seeing a video of vigilante activity from outside of Africa and Latin America.
Furthermore, African vigilante activity is generally spontaneous and has no organization: a crowd simply amass and stone or burn a suspected criminal to death. Their pathway to vigilantism is probably substantially different from any way Whites could arrive at it: e.g. anger plus low impulse control happening enough to lead to normalization of vigilante actions. Whites are too high impulse control to behave like African crowds, preventing enough spontaneous vigilante actions happening, preventing normalization of said actions.
Somebody else mentioned Christianity and Islam. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's Latin America where 'autodefensas' are the most prevalent and well organized, not Muslim countries.
Furthermore, crime isn't as pervasive in most White neighbourhoods as it is in Latin American countries. It took years to decades of living under fear of cartels before autodefensas really got going, and decades of living under crime before some Brazilians started to develop similar vigilante behaviours (e.g. ramming their cars into the getaway bikes of robbers). Before that, the Brazilian attitude was just one of pure apathy, and largely still is.
I've seen videos of Brazilians being shot dead: many spectators don't even flee from the sound of gunshots like White people would. Most White people would scream and run without conscious thought. My suspicion is that they're so well adapted to a crime-ridden environment that crime is no longer shocking: they neither scream nor run, and barely even look in the general direction. Rather, they simply continue going about their day.
Some Brazilians also have an attitude that is like this: 'Most crime only happens to people who are involved in drugs and gang life. Since I am not involved in drugs and gang life, I do not need to worry about it, it will not affect me.' That is, of course, simply another rationalization for their adaptation. Plenty of students and other people unlikely to be involved with drugs and gang life also end up being shot dead.
Of course, adaptation can only go so far. For some, crime became so pervasive that it led to anger and fear. I think that contributed to Bolsonaro's election victory, and vigilante activity increased at that time. Come to think of it, I think it has probably decreased again, probably because these people felt emboldened by Bolsonaro, whereas the return of Lula to the presidency has removed those feelings.
The other main point is that vigilantism is deeply anti-Western: since the Enlightenment, Whites have liked to govern themselves by the 'rule of law'. Taking the law into your own hands has been seen as wrong for centuries.
These factors and others all lead to the same conclusion. People are too engrossed in entertainment and work to really be aware of the crime around them. Even if they are not, people are too individualized to really care about it until it affects them or those closest to them. Even if it did affect them or those closest to them, the prevailing political culture and ideologies are against vigilantism, and usually strongly prefer to relegate all such matters to a standing police force. Even if it wasn't, crime isn't perceived as pervasive enough to justify adapting that political culture. Even if crime got out of hand such that some started to feel that way, most people would simply pathologically rationalize why they should hold on to their unjustifiable apathy.
You have to go through or somehow around all of these hoops and others before vigilantism could become normalized among Whites. It is thus no surprise that there is not a single White country in which all of these hoops have been passed such that vigilantism is actually normalized. I don't recall once a seeing a video of vigilante activity from outside of Africa and Latin America.
Furthermore, African vigilante activity is generally spontaneous and has no organization: a crowd simply amass and stone or burn a suspected criminal to death. Their pathway to vigilantism is probably substantially different from any way Whites could arrive at it: e.g. anger plus low impulse control happening enough to lead to normalization of vigilante actions. Whites are too high impulse control to behave like African crowds, preventing enough spontaneous vigilante actions happening, preventing normalization of said actions.
Toast message
if a White person gets caught doing "terrorism" he will be punished to the highest degree, his family will be out of a job, his friends will be investigated and his community will also be punished (and they'll also be forced to make a gay statement saying racism bad, we hate our own etc etc)
the jews have realized that Terror works, and most people just wanna get their burger and goytertainment and continue on with their day
doing vigilante stuff=no moar burgers and goytertainment
and most people who ARE warriors are either dead, or in prison
the few who aren't are probably laying low considering how anti-White the "hate crime" laws are in Europe these days...
another factor is religion, Islam usually promotes marytrdom through violent action, Christianity does the opposite (Martyrdom through pacifism) because most Euro-peons are pacifists they do not believe that going ballistic on ZOG ENFORCERS is the right answer
they believe that they need to bitch and moan until the other goy cattle will also bitch and moan and by some divine intervention the situation will be improved
in truth? freedom is always achieved at the cost of sacrifice, in the Ottoman era hundrends of Balkan rebel group formed, did their damage and then were violently quelled but ultimately the cracks were formed and eventually the empire fell, it became too costly to oppress the conquered territories and by the end of the 19th century they were on the recieving end of these rebel groups
however the damage of forced misgenation did its damage, millions of balkans (Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks) were turkified and mongrelized beyond repair
only those on the islands protected by Knightly Orders (i.e the Hospitalers) managed to evade mass rape and thus these islands remained culturally and genetically pristine (i.e Rhodes)
I think you are right in general. What surprises me though is that there appear to be no secret organizations or small secret groups that would do any kind of resistance. Vigilantism can be done covertly. People don't realize that most murders are never resolved, especially when counting undetected deeds.
It's not that long ago when IRA or ETA were willing to resort to violence, though often not aimed correctly.
These days, the Balkans has some of the safest countries in the world, but was a powder keg just a few decades ago.
The potential is still there.
the west is largely dominated by women, fags, foreigners and esp jews hence we see no action
in order for vigilantes to arise first you need MEN who not only moral but also have ZEAL to do what must be done
most men in the west are soft, they prioratize "live and let live" and just plain "survival"
we need more than survival we need a fuckin revolution, bloody as hell itself to unshackle ourselves from corrupt jew politicians and the zogbots that protect them.
Shia islam does this. Sunni Islam doesn't (with the exception of maybe hamas, but hamas has heavy iranian influence). Sunnis believe in violent expansionism but the lists of the "martyrs" is largely unimportant to them in comparison to the goal, with some exceptions given for very important figures like Saddam Hussein (and even then only sometimes, and iraqi sunnis are influenced by shiism, hes the only martyr-like figure ive observed with sunnis). Sunnis are also much more strictly iconoclastic than shiites and view martyrdom as idolatry, hence it is a necessity that the individual "martyrs" don't really matter to them. An example of the difference is the fact that sunni militant groups usually fizzle out and die if the leader is killed or he's just replaced, while shiite ones become significantly stronger. This is because shiism places importance on martrydom while sunni doesn't. This is an important difference. It's good that shiites are not exactly the problem in the west.
>Christianity does the opposite (Martyrdom through pacifism)
*Kind of*. The catholic church of the medieval ages promoted martyrdom through violence. The most famous example of this is probably St. Jeanne D'Arc or St. Louis IX. You also have St. Ferdinand III or St. Bernard of Clairvaux. There's also more outlandish examples like St. Justo Takayama. That's not to count the regular footsoldiers and such of the crusades proper, the northern crusades, and also the initial expansion of Christianity via the Roman empire. Not everyone achieved sainthood obviously but all of these soldiers were effectively celebrated by the church for engaging in violence on behalf of the church. Especially during the crusades, where they were literal martyrs.
The point is that western European Christianity absolutely had a violent martyrdom culture almost mimicking what exists in shiite Islam. What happened? It's hard to say exactly what. What probably caused the church to cool its rhetoric was because they were aggravating the home-grown protestant movement by pushing for violent action against them, which had the opposite effect on the number of protestants in Europe and later beyond, eventually this turned into a wish to prevent war with powerful newly-protestant nations like England, the baltics/Prussia, and most of Scandinavia.
Again, that's a theory. But the catholic church changed its violent rhetoric long before it's probable that any outside interests had influence whatsoever. By the time protestantism had legitimate pull in Europe, that's curiously around the same time that you stop seeing church excursions being anything but missionary work and when you also see military saints all but disappear.
Moreover, the protestant issue opened up a weird can of worms. To demonstrate martyrdom, the oppressor has to have a legitimate hatred of the faith, which protestants do not qualify for (joan of arc was a weird exception and, at the time, was more of a national martyr for france than a religious one). Hence why the martyr culture most probably died, as almost all wars European powers engaged in from this time on were between each other (with the exception of the occasional random, usually portuguese, skirmish with the ottomans). The arguments for a holy war, martyrdom, and sainthood by combat are significantly less strong against another group of Christians. So the rhetoric simply died out in western Europe. Orthodoxy in the east never really had a "war-cult" for the exact inverse reason, I can get into that more if you want. There is an exception with the conquest of the natives, but again, this applied specifically to the portuguese and spanish and basically nobody else (the french and british didnt give a fuck). Spain and portugal kept martyrdom by violence going on for a bit longer, but not by much. Once they baptized everyone the rhetoric of war with pagans obviously died, and it didn't take them long to do that. Plus, even then, it was still watered down significantly compared to crusader zealotry or reconquista zealotry (specifically from the crown of Castilla, NOT the crown of aragon, an important thing to note)
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed