(This is a philosophical question. Just exploring ideas)
Increasing number of people have nothing to lose. Rioting is pointless and dumb and can land you in jail. People publicly writing "bad stuff" on social media are risking jail-time or at least having their lives destroyed.
Why is nobody killing the rapists and murderers? Why is there no secret organization cleaning up the streets? Why are politicians and "public servants" allowed to feel safe?
I think this is a historical anomaly.
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