Ever since Laura Loomer rushed the stage of New York City’s rendition of Julius Caesar by the ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ theatre group, different factions of the political-right have been debating the merits of giving the political-left a taste of its own medicine. Of course, the “respectable” conservatives decried the use of any tit-for-tat strategy. By contrast, many members of the hard-right cheered such a move. And other members of the right fell somewhere in-between those two points-of-view.
For my part, I endorsed the idea of using the left’s tactics against it. In my ROK article “The Argument for Using Leftist Tactics Against the Left”, I argued that using the left’s tactics against them in a proportional manner, and when done in response to those tactics, was a perfectly moral strategy given our current state of cultural war with the left.
I also pointed out that just as a police officer is perfectly moral when he proportionally and reasonably responds to a threat even though he may use the same tactics that the threat uses, so too is the political-right perfectly moral in using the left’s tactics against them, so long as the right’s response is proportional and reasonable.
But with the above point already argued, the next issue that needs to be addressed is the following: can a systematic method or system be created to determine when and how the political-right should use the left’s tactics against them? And, in fact, there is such a system, and its inspiration also comes from the policing world.
The Use-of-Force Continuum
Within the law enforcement community, modern police forces teach their officers something called a use-of-force continuum. This is a concept which is meant to provide police officers with a systematic and standard way to apply their use-of-force tactics in any given situation. And what this concept essentially teaches is that a police officer is justified in mirroring a subject’s own level of force, so long as the officer’s actions are fundamentally responsive to the threat against him and are also proportionate to that threat.
If a subject begins showing clear signs that he is about to use deadly force against a police officer, or if the subject already is trying to use deadly force, then the officer can respond to the threat with deadly force. But if a subject is simply engaging in a verbal argument with a police officer, then, of course, the police officer cannot legitimately respond to that subject with deadly force.
The use-of-force continuum teaches the police officer when they can legitimately use violent tactics against a subject as well as what type of violent tactics can be employed at what time.
Just as the police have a use-of-force continuum to help guide their actions, I propose that the political-right adopt a cultural ‘use-of-force’ continuum to help guide them in their cultural conflicts with the political-left. Such a tool would help individuals on the right know when they can use certain cultural-war tactics as well as understand what specific tactics they can legitimately use in response to the left’s attacks.
What would this cultural ‘use-of-force’ continuum look like?
First, it would make absolutely clear that any ‘illiberal’ tactic used by the political-right would only be employed in response to the left’s use of such a tactic. This does not mean that such a tactic could not be used pre-emptively, but it would mean that there would have to be clear and unmistakable signs, visible to a reasonable person, that the political-left was going to use such tactics before the right responded in kind.
This would be in much the same way as a police officer can become physically-aggressive with a subject so long as the subject is showing clear signs that he was about to be assaultive, such as through the clenching of his fists and jaw, posturing, cocking his fists to punch, and so on.
Also note that for the political-right to be strategically responsive does not mean that it must be on the defensive in a tactical sense; rather, it means that the political-right should follow the maxim of never starting anything, but always finishing everything. And in order to do that, an offensive tactical attitude is an absolute must!
Next, in terms of its approach, this cultural ‘use-of-force’ continuum would teach the political-right to mirror what the political-left does. So, if the political-left remains civil, engages in debate, and keeps their protests within the bounds of the law, then the political-right would restrict its tactics to the same activities. However, if the political-left (or parts of the political-left) begins to engage in illegal and illiberal activities and protests, then the political-right can respond with similar tactics, at least when targeting the parts of the political-left that are doing so.
Of course, this does not mean that the political-right necessarily has to use such tactics in response to the left if it is not strategically advantageous to do so, but it mean that such tactics could be used if it is in the interests of the political-right to employ them.
Finally, if the left decides to engage in actual violence against members of the political-right, then the political-right can always respond in self-defense against such an attack until the physical threat has been stopped. And if the threat do not stop, then alternative measures, such as pushing for secession, are the next step to be employed.
The Morality of the Cultural Use-of-Force Continuum
It should be made clear that this cultural use-of-force continuum is not only a rational strategy for the political-right to adopt, but it is also a perfectly moral and ethical strategy as well. For again, remember that both a criminal and a police officer use violence as a tactic to achieve their ends. However, a criminal uses violence for personal gain and to disrupt the stability of society; by contrast, a police officer—who is also called a peace officer—ideally uses violence for the benefit of society and as a means to restore peace to society.
The police officer and the criminal are completely different from a moral perspective even though they both employ the same tactics; and they are different precisely because their reasons and ultimate ends for using the tactic of violence are different. Indeed, the police officer does not become a criminal simply because he uses violence just like the criminal does.
In the same way, an individual on the political-right does not become a leftist simply because, in response to the left, the rightist uses tactics most often associated with the political-left. After all, the political-right’s reason and ultimate end for using such tactics are different from the left. The political-left uses illiberal tactics—such as shutting-down and attacking speakers on the political-right—in order to gain power and to undermine ideas that are opposed to them without debate.
By contrast, if the political-right decides to start using the same sort of illiberal tactics against the political-left, it is to teach the political-left a lesson in the only way that the left learns from: namely, painful experience. It is also to push the political-left back to a position where they once again start to respect free speech and civil debate. So, even though the tactics used might be the same, there is no moral equivalence between the left and the right because the reasons for using those tactics are completely different.
Furthermore, the minute the left stops using such tactics, the right will stop as well. However, the reverse of that is not the case. And that is a critical difference as well.
Is there a chance that, in response to the political-right’s use of their tactics, the political-left will simply escalate their own tactics? Of course there is a chance of this occurring. But the political-left is not going to stop escalating their tactics simply because the political-right asks them to. After all, the “respectable” conservatives have been politely asking the left to stop using such tactics for the last dozen years, and during that time, the political-left has culturally steam-rolled over such conservatives. They also continued to use their illiberal tactics with impunity wherever they held power, such as in academia.
Conclusion
In the end, if the only option is to keep losing to the political-left or to use the political-left’s tactics against them, then the choice is obvious. After all, while it may be distasteful to use such tactics for the limited time that it is necessary to beat back the political-left, the fact is that losing to the political-left is infinitely worse than merely using such tactics.
And so, in order to be able to use these tactics in a reasonable and legitimate manner, I suggest that the political-right adopt this idea of a cultural ‘use-of-force’ continuum, for doing so will help to ensure that any tactics used by the political-right are entirely proportional to the tactics used against them. And that will not only help the right win the cultural war, but it will also help them win the hearts and minds of the average citizen as well.
Read More: Tactics For The War Against Cultural Marxism In 2015
“Laughter is the best weapon. That and rape.” — Gandhi.
No you didn’t…
“It is your health that is real wealth, not pieces of gold and silver.” -Jeffrey Dahmer.
“I was the man…until Jeffrey Dahmer ate me.” – Gandhi
“I once ate Gandhi and Jeffrey Dahmer at the same time.” –Eleanor Roosevelt.
I think that was Oprah Winfrey
Oprah is well-known for her widespread plagiarism and using other people’s quotes without attribution.
“Ghandi is well-known for his widespread plagiarism and using other people’s quotes without attribution”
-O. Winfrey
“You want some lemonade?” -Gandhi.
“No thanks, I just ate.” -Jeffrey Dahmer.
I did. And I’ll do it again, too.
Btw, have you noticed how over the last few years the Core of Alt-Righters changed from bitter, angry, old, white men to younger, humorously assertive crowd?
The Left is humorless, thats why when one trolls them – it completely disarms them and sends them into uncontrollable frenzy since they are too stiff to come up with a funny come-back.
“If we use violence to stop terrorists, what makes us different from them?”
The difference, cliched-peacenik-hippie, is that ISIS will *will do anything* to impose Islamofascism upon the whole world and establish a caliphate based upon murder of non-Muslims.
And I will do anything to stop them.
I am not saying you are wrong….you aren’t you are 100% right. But shouldn’t it be enough to say “listen, it doesn’t matter. there are two teams in this fucking war. root for the one you are on”
My arguments are different, depending on who I am arguing with. To a Libertarian or isolationist conservative, I’d remind them that ISIS has murdered several Americans and Britons, and has a stated goal of destroying America and the UK.
Border walls aren’t enough: we have to attack and destroy those who wish us harm. You cannot ‘defend an enemy to death’ in a situation like this.
That is easy to say but hard to do. Some of this shit — not all, just some — is actually a result of politicians telling us we have to “attack and destroy those who wish us harm.”
Libertarians have nothing against the defensive use of force. And it’s not isolationist to say “We don’t pre-emptively strike others”.
Agreed, and it’s also not warmongering to say, ‘lets hit them before they suicide bomb us.’
Eh, it kinda is warmongering actually.
Cause and effect. If we didn’t meddle overseas I doubt we’d have many suicide bombers to worry about bombing us in our malls. They just don’t care enough to bug people who aren’t bothering them. You rarely ever see them getting their bomb vests on in Switzerland, for example.
Once you put on the uniform of World Cop then you become a de facto target of those out to harm people, just like real life cops who often get targeted by criminals (in car shootings, or tracking them to their homes, etc).
The sanest solution is free trade with all, entangling alliances with none, as George Washington said.
Ok, woulda shoulda coulda, but I don’t really think that escalating with “Hey, we think Abdul over there might hurt us, let’s blow up his village” is a wise strategy. In my lifetime that kind of thinking has only seen things get progressively worse, drastically so.
I’m like you in that I’m all about going for the kill shot against Islam, but I don’t buy into pre-emptively punching around people who have as of yet done me no wrong.
Warmongering implies (in the vernacular) that said action is unjustified.
It would be highly justified to send in a SEAL or Special Forces team to kill or capture Abdul. Because Abdul has been posting on ISIS message boards about how much he wants to kill Americans, and we know that he has been stockpiling the materials for chemical agents. We know that Abdul’s brother studied chemical engineering in Kabul and GPS tracking indicates he has been spending an unusually large amount of time in Abdul’s hut since Abdul started posting on ISIS message boards.
Further, Abdul’s government has turned a “blind eye” to the activities of Abdul and people like him. For some reason, Abdul’s government never seems to collect taxes from Abdul, and they never seem to investigate Abdul for the opium farm he is running (in spite of opium being illegal in Abdul’s country).
A CIA Operations Officer recommends that Abdul be targeted for a kill/capture operation. However, the CIA officer’s government rejects the plan because Abdul hasn’t actually committed any violent act against the United States yet. The CIA Operations Officer sighs at political ideologies getting in the way of doing his job, but lets it go.
Six months later, Abdul blows himself up at the Super Bowl, murdering a few hundred Americans. The CIA Operations Officer goes to his usual bar and commiserates with his bar tender (who is a Vietnam-Era Army Special Forces retiree) about politicians costing lives.
So, again, why isn’t Abdul targeting Swiss bankers or Brazilian government buildings?
Abdul considers bombing a European or South American country, but decides against it. He wants to kill Americans because they are the Great Satan that prevented the annihilation of the Jews.
Further, Abdul has a particular hatred for Americans: Abdul, like many middle eastern men, has a penchant for having sex with 10 year old boys. A few years ago after the United States invaded Afghanistan (a country that was openly assisting Al Qaeda and almost bragging about it, daring George Bush to invade), an Army Captain from the 25th Infantry Division caught Abdul raping a 9 year old boy. The Army Captain beat Abdul senseless and sent the boy home to his parents.
While Abdul has no particular like for any western country: He knows that in the west, men can hedonistic-ally get huge amounts of sex from women (paid or otherwise). Abdul has a difficult time getting pussy, because his particular tribe/sect practices polygamy: all the beautiful girls become concubines or “wives” of the tribal leaders, leaving very little pussy for a low-status man like himself.
The fact that an American Army Captain, whom he assumed was probably getting huge amounts of pussy, denied him the pleasure of raping a 9 year old boy, eats away at him: how arrogant of that sexually satisfied American to deny him one of the few pleasures he can enjoy in his shithole country. That American Captain can go home after his deployment to his huge house and have his beautiful girlfriends over and screw them silly.
Abdul cares little for the massive political goings-on of the world. All Abdul knows is that some arrogant assholes who always have running water and actually get pussy are trying to tell him he can’t fuck pre-pubescent boys (or goats). They have the arrogance to believe that *he is the evil one*. Fuck oil or Saudi Arabia: for Abdul, life has always been a third-world struggle to survive. The only thing that keeps him going in his shitty life is the fact that Islam is the true religion, and all non-believers are rightly his slaves.
Right. Because most of the world isn’t bombing his family into oblivion.
If China did periodic straffing runs over here that killed my wife and son, and we didn’t have our massive military, I’d probably consider going to Beijing and knocking out a few Chinamen.
Never thought I’d see you take a sympathetic view on the terrorists…
The United States also isn’t bombing Abdul into oblivion: The Army Captain (who later joins the CIA and becomes an Operations Officer) knows that the U.S. goes out of its way to only bomb targets after confirmation of the presence of enemy forces (in the case of a planned bombing) or if Coalition Forces are currently under attack from a building.
While some very rare mistakes are made, the Army Captain is also keenly aware that the U.S. often doesn’t bomb a target because civilian casualties wouldn’t be justified for the amount of enemy forces/high value targets destroyed. Even when it means letting a senior Al Qaeda leader live another day.
As a student of history, the Army Captain is also keenly aware of how things can get blown out of proportion: At West Point, he studied Sherman’s March to the Sea. Postbellum, numerous families in the South claimed that “Sherman burned my barn!” . Subsequent research of the exact route that Sherman took to the Atlantic shows that many of those who claim they had their farms burned by Sherman were hundreds of miles away from where Sherman’s Army was located and was outside the range of Sherman’s foraging parties. However, although relatively few Southerners suffered Sherman’s wrath, everything got blown so out of proportion that everyone and their brother claimed to have had their barn burned by Sherman.
The Army Captain is a bit disheartened that many in the U.S. believe that Apaches and Cobras do “periodic strafing runs” on civilians for no justifiable reason. In fact, as an Infantry Company Commander, the Captain had numerous CAS requests denied by higher headquarters due to risk of civilian casualties. Right or wrong, he lost a few men because one of his platoons didn’t get the requested air support.
Even while working at the CIA, the Army Captain lives with the ghosts of those men that were lost. He wonders if he could have said, or done, something to convince Brigade to approve the airstrikes. However, the worst part is that when the Army Captain speaks with his fellow Americans, there seem to people across the political spectrum who are convinced that American forces wantonly and whimsically kill civilians with “periodic strafing runs” that are arbitrarily called in for no reason.
Who says I’m sympathetic?
I’m saying, if you don’t throw rocks at a hornets nest, you probably won’t get targeted for a good proper stinging by hornets.
Or better put – I don’t see many instance of Islamics bombing American cities prior to the 1980’s.
My entire point is that if you’re going to put on the world cop uniform and start cracking skulls, you make yourself a target. The Muslims are still scary nasty people, but we were better served when they were out killing each other over minute religious differences like in the 1970’s and prior.
I don’t think that individuals randomly target others at random for fun and profit.
I do note however that if you have boots on the ground in another country, and some of the death is coming from you, you’re going to galvanize the locals against you. Throw in a few Muslim proselytizers (like the commies did in south vietnam during the war) to recruit and boom, you have the making of bad mojo.
I stand by George Washington’s admonishment.
Of course. I understand your point. It’s just that I’m surprised that even though what you said is true, you’ll almost never see people take this perspective.
I used to hang out with libertarians and was one myself – most are your average cucks
I’m not talking party type big L libertarians. I mean your normal Classical Liberal type (as in like the Founders). The party itself is goofy and mutual masturbation with a public presence on the ballot.
It comes with the business. I think there is a much wider debate here about US involvement in the world, which is a very good thing.
Washington accepted French aid during the American Revolution. Although he wasn’t the first (or the last) leader to not live up to his own ideals, the Yanks wouldn’t have won if France had followed his advice. Yorktown depended on the French Navy.
That was pre-nationhood though. That phrase comes from his farewell address I believe? Once the nation existed I think he saw how awful entangling alliances could be to such a fledgling nation.
your 2 or 3 posts above were well thought out and written, bravo sir.
Alternatively, there is an Infantry Company Commander who realizes that the boogeyman is just a tool to continue funneling money into the MIC which throws a few shekels towards reelection.
He also realizes that we have created our own problems with our whack-a-muzzie strategy and that for every one he kills he creates a few more.
Add to this, he realizes that there is no gigantic armada of Jihadi’s sailing to our shores other than what we are allowing to come in.
Also, our grizzled old Captain understands that the initial call to violence was because of the military presence in the Kingdom of Saud where Mecca and Medina are. Which is problematic because that Kingsom is also the home of the Petrodollar.
Lastly, our good Captain has recognized that the cultures of these people only recognize two things: strength and weakness. He knows that these illiterates won’t tangle with someone projecting strength who , they know, will abso-positive-lutely wreak mass destruction upon anyone who messes with them.
Actually you can.
We can and should use violence to stop terrorists. Using violence to stop terrorists won’t turn us into terrorists. Using terrorism to stop terrorists might turn us into terrorists, but not using violence.
Diplomacy has run its course. Before we can build, on must destroy the previous foundation.
One might argue that terrorism is so effective because it dispenses with morals and ethics. In war, winning is the only thing that matters. Morality only gets in the way.
You know which side you’re on and you know who your enemies are. Use whatever means necessary to end the conflict as swiftly as possible.
War is strange. We try to put rules, values, morals, etc. on the act of deliberately and thoughtfully systematically killing your fellow human beings. Where does one get the hubris to try to say that suicide bombers are bad but off-shore, long range missiles are a-okay?
Exactly. All weapons are a means to an end. It is pointless to attribute morality to them. Ending a war brutally but quickly will save a lot more lives in the long run.
I think that most of these rules are made because the people who DO NOT fight feel icky about the things that are done on their behalf, and need to create some kind of moral facade to it so they can pretend that it somehow can’t be attributed to them. It may sound callous, but in Iraq, I got to the point where I just didn’t fucking care how those motherfuckers died. We ran a shake-and-bake mission on a battalion refueling their vehicles and laughed when we fried those fucks. I could see a civilian hearing this – a story about a completely legitimate military target and method of engagement – and think that it makes them feel bad so we should create some kind of rule of engagement to prohibit it so that they don’t have to feel complicit in that kind of stuff.
Civilians recoil in horror, but they don’t have to sit in the reality of that shit and understand how you can really just get to the point, not of hate towards your enemy, but complete indifference to them. I know some people who have regrets about some things that went down, but it was NEVER over a legitimate kill, no matter how gruesome (not saying they’re not out there, but I think it is rare). Rather, it’s always some kind of civilians unintentionally getting caught up in something, or something that happened to one of our own that actually causes regret.
But most people just can’t identify with this. What have most of them been asked to sacrifice for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Some news interruptions that they could tune out, and some taxes that they didn’t personally contribute that much to. They literally have no idea what war is like, to a comical extent. They honestly think war is antiseptic like a video game. Haha. Try telling that to this guy: http://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient.php?recipientid=204838
It’s based on your perspective. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
“If we kill our enemy they win” -justin tradue
“If you win, kill all your enemies.” — Soviet Russia.
“If we kill our enemies, we win, then we kill their families. More winning.” – Actual Soviet Russia.
“Stop that or I’ll suck your dick!”
-The Average globocuck
If you stop someone from raping your wife – they win.
hm. depends on your wife, really….you MIGHT be doing the guy a favor!
“I just raped your wife, and she loved it.” — Gandhi.
Shorter answer: “do you believe in anything?”
Never lose sight of the fact that this position – which equates intentionally targeting and killing innocent people with self defense against the same as though they are on the same moral plane. It is an amoral position, and should be called out as such.
Another response – “since you wouldn’t stop them, YOU’RE no different. You are an accomplice. And a naive one to boot.”
Don’t worry about Isis. Their feudal style is something which might well be worth studying. And they’re nowhere near us. They operate in a vacuum, so if they ever came to America they would only succeed in an environment where American militias woulda be much more successful at defending themselves.
Its amusing how much the olds are so afraid of some nancy-boy college fags. I ‘member when I was a little one and heavy metal and violent 8-bit video games were to be the downfall of modern of society. Now its rainbow dresses and androgynous make out parties in Brooklyn that are sure to do us in. Oh whatever shall we do.
but if you listen to those dresses backwards they tell you to kill yourself
by the way, since you brought up the hilarious heavy metal as the end of the world I feel I have to mention the greatest line on this ever which comes from Dennis Leary
Let me get this straight. Heavy metal fans are buying heavy metal records, taking the records home, listening to the records, and then blowing their heads off with shotguns? Where’s the problem? That’s an unemployment solution right there, folks! It’s called natural selection. It’s the bottom of the fuckin’ food chain, okay? I say we put more messages on the records. “Kill the band, kill your parents, then yourself, okay? Make sure you get your whole head in front of the shotgun. Thank you for calling! Thank you for calling!”
Genius. I’ll remember that one.
You mean to tell me that Stevie Ray Vaughn is dead, and we can’t get John Bon Jovi into a helicopter?”
No Cure For Cancer is just so amazing.
How come ya changed your avitar and name? I didn’t recognize ya for the lonest time until ya made a Chinese Coke PeePee Joke.
Ancient Chinese secret
Asshole. LoLz!
If you remember that stuff – you are an old.
Got that right, whippersnapper. I turned 30 and haven’t trusted myself since.
You have a point, but I don’t recall the heavy metal movement becoming so large and politically powerful that they were forcing stores to install new Heavy Metal only bathrooms. I don’t remember the violent 8-bit video game movement forcing the government to fundamentally alter the definition of marriage.
No, saner heads eventually prevailed (kind of), but Tipper Gore, et al certainly began forcing their will on everybody else regarding those. John Denver had to defend Twisted Sister in front of Congress!
I demand a Heavy Metal Only boys room…for smoking.
Good stuff. There are a whole lot of Veterans, conservatives, whatever… all waiting for things to turn into an open civil war so they can get the guns out of the attack and join the battle. But it will never come to that. The Left knows they would be slaughtered. So they will keep up their constant pressure without ever pushing it to the point of open warfare.
Unless you want to live in a communist state, you have to keep up the constant resistance to their crap
BLM and recent violence suggests otherwise. And we’ve started hitting back (smacking around Profasc folks) (see that, not anti-fascists, pro-fascists, lol)
NEWS FLASH!! AMERICA ALREADY IS A COMMUNIST STATE!
If you read the communist manifesto, you will see that America follows about 80-90% of the demands made in the manifesto in various forms throughout Federal State, and Local levels. If an organization adheres to the policies outlined in the communist manifesto, it is a Communist organization. (Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc.)
If one is worried about fighting communists, it isn’t the AntiFags ya gotta fight if civil war breaks out. It will be the Domestic Enemy and RedCoat Traitors of the military that follow orders from the communist federal government.
The only reason the US police forces and US military haven’t racked up Stalin like numbers at this point is due to compliance. The average American is a soft, lazy, spineless, moron who only wants to sit on their ass and watch TV.
The American System Of Government in 2017 would give Stalin and Mussolini boners so big they could give themselves blow jobs.
When Civil War comes, instead of thanking them for their service and giving them a free meal every November 11th, it will be your Precious Heroes that you will have to fight to preserve your property and liberty.
As a son of a Viet Nam War vet (who ENLISTED, not drafted), I absolutely despise and loathe what the military has become in the last 15 years or so. I see them as the Domestic Enemy that the Constitutional Oath warns about. America was founded on the distrust, distain, and bloodshed of government officials. This blind worship of bureaucracy and their violent agents is down right UnAmerican, and I personally hope I live to see it all burn to the ground and watch these people die in the bed they make.
Lighten up, Francis
LoLz! Hahaha. Hadn’t heard that one in years.
Leftists…and those whom they defend…I give you: The Final Solution. (Night, night…sleep tight.)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a421b61b04683b98cef2cf28548d88f52cbf6eac8cb44422ffd9d2302487253d.jpg
I don’t get the correlation with vaccinations with regards to the Knights Templar?
The Red Cross is a Templar organization (thus, their symbol is the red cross). “Shhh…” But don’t take this as anything more than a crazy conspiracy theory. Seriously. I just like making memes.
also, the Kansas City Chiefs, my first car and 7 of the stripes in the American flag. Betsy (((Ross)))
Ok, not that link, I mean the mandatory forced vaccinations?
I believe I read something the other day about the good work that is being done in Africa and India even as we speak (forced vaccinations). Right there in the mainstream media. What did the Spartans say in that film, “300”, after their first battle – “A good start…”
Yes. Betsy Ross and George Washington Carver liked chocolate. I knew they were related.
But RC is a NGO (non-government organization). How can they force aything on anybody. Not coming to anybody’s defense, I know little about this topic.
They don’t force it – the UN does…you know, that benevolent, peace-keeping organization…
chocolate? Hershey? Pennsylvania? Ticonderoga? Number 2 pencils? Standardized Tests? College Admissions. Is there anything that isn’t involved?
The UN can’t force, for example, some family in Alabama from refusing vaccinations. Last check? In fact in a way they’re a NGO too, they are not in any way shape or form a government entity.
It just gets weirder and weirder…
It’s happening in Africa and India…and it’s coming to a theater (of war) near us…
How can the UN force that though? That’s a matter of individual governments. Even if we say individual governments, what has that to do with the red cross?
I’m actually asking serious questions, I really don’t see how this links up (honestly).
If you live in a third-world country (which the U.S. will be, pretty soon here), and some UN troops roll into your town, along with some Red Cross personnel, and they whip out their guns and tell you to roll up your sleeves…who ya gonna call – Ghost Busters? Speaking hypothetically, crazy-conspiracy, totally batshit nuts here, of course…
at least they usually have food in the other hand.
What in tarnation makes you think that the US will be a third world country soon?
Oh, I don’t know…take a look around…all the good jobs shipped overseas…all the immigrants rushing in (soon to happen on a more rapid basis). Reality TV. Fast food. College degrees that get a guy a barista job. Etc.
The UN has rolled into India with guns in hand and Red Cross in tow and demanded that Hindudes get vaccinated?
Yep. It’s happening in various locations in India, right now. It’s been happening in Africa for at least 25 years now. “Dey dindu nuffin, and soon, dey won’t be around to do nuffin at all…”
India is a nuclear power. Why have I never heard of them being invaded by the UN by force and their people subjugated against their will to vaccinate? Wouldn’t that make at least the alt-right news?
Redux…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e2cfdf265fbcc5e1b9cd042902fb930380dc9bd282dc2018955f57610afa3ccf.jpg
All the lousy jobs are being shipped over seas. Shitty entertainment has been part of the world since the time of Aristophanes or before. Fast food is avoidable and in the last 10 years the nation as a whole has become much more health conscious and is trending upwards. Only useless college degrees get barista jobs and this is a good thing….I would say that the US is on a fine trajectory
As for the immigrants…I don’t know the numbers but I live in a sanctuary city and I don’t see enough immigrants rushing in to make any difference other than driving down the wages of shit labor which actually helps people like me who do large scale projects. I seriously doubt it is worse in non-sanctuary cities.
All in all I would say we are doing just fine.
I think Gandhi said that
I’m saying, those of us out here (and I don’t mean me, I mean Hindudes) would probably be mentioning this wouldn’t they? If you have a source, then surely somebody is saying something, right?
I think we’re doing fine as well. And I say, “Full speed ahead” and “let the bodies hit the floor”…
I actually saw something about this in an Alt. Lite source a couple days back. I’ll see if I can run it down, and will post a link if I can find it.
depends on which bodies. I am no altruist.
Aye, there’s the rub…
“I am the source of all wisdom throughout the ages, and highly quotable” – Gandhi
As an aside…you know who Templars hate the most? Take a guess…
Guess who Templars hate the most (which demographics)…there are two of them.
The People’s Front of Judea? Because they’re splitters, I’d suspect.
No, I actually don’t. I know very little about them, as mentioned earlier.
Blacks and…Jews (you got it)…they freakin’ hate Jews. Guess who is going to wind up claiming Jerusalem…yes, yes. That would be the Templars.
Ghandi?
“Betsy (((ROTH))) was in on it”
-Sylvester the Cat
Nobody hates Gandhi…come on, man!
I dunno…..dudes been running his mouth a lot lately….
He won’t have to worry until unmarked helicopters track him everywhere. Besides, he can dance. He can dance like a hopped-up muggafuggin’ Indian juggernaut.
“Ghandi can dance like a hopped-up muggafuggin’ Indian juggernaut.”
-Fred Astaire
“Fred Astaire danced like a fag.” – Gene Kelly
so what is this bout you speaking of . Jew elites vs Templar elites
Saracens & King Phillipe le Bel?
I think that is true. The Knights Templar formed in Jerusalem with the original intent of protecting pilgrims. At first, they were poor but this the help of an influential Catholic priest, they managed to convince the Pope to side with them. Soon after, with contributions flowing in from all of Europe, they became an incredibly powerful and wealthy organization. They were credited with creating a simple form of banking and the first formal use of cheques.
In the Deus Ex game, the Knights Templar control (in secret) the worldwide banking system. And the WHO exist only to influence public opinion regarding health.
The Knights Templar still exist. My grandfather was a card-carrying member. So were all the patriarchs in my family, back a few hundred years, before him…so that game you are playing…truth, dressed up as fiction…
Bob how many different underground Elite groups are there in your opinion. It has seem like most wars are merely bouts between different groups of elites.
I don’t know how many secret societies and groups-within-groups exist for certain, but I would estimate they number in the hundreds, at least. As for the underlying causes of war, thinning the herd is typically the first reason: Getting rid of the lower classes, as the lower classes are primarily the ones who do the fighting. Also, wars are fought in underprivileged areas – you don’t hear about gated-enclaves of the wealthy being blown up by bombs. There are other benefits, usually the usurpation of resources (minerals, oil, etc.), and the implementation of banking systems (World Bank, IMF). But as far as the elite fighting each other goes, I think that’s been fabricated and sold to the masses via the media owned by the elite. There may be a little of that going on, but it’s mostly squabbles about how to divide the spoils after the war. That’s my take on it. Opinions vary.
I think, and @disqusbobsmith:disqus can correct me if I am wrong, that the thinking behind the Templars being connected to international banking is that that is a lot of what they did. You left your home somewhere in Europe and gave the local church Templar rep your money and they gave you a receipt and then you made the long dangerous trek out to Jerusalem to pilgrimage to the temple (a trip that carrying money on would probably have been really a bad idea) and give over your receipt to the Templar guy there and they would give you money. The Templars were better at carrying dough from Europe to the holy land because they were armed knights and not unarmed pilgrims. This kind of system obviously opens up room for all sorts of shenanigans which made the Templars rich.
I think you hit the nail on the head there, my man. Now just shift forward several hundred years, and…here we are…same old shit, different day.
Because crusading was seen as a holy and noble task, many royals and nobles sent their sons to Jerusalem. Any landed property will be handed to the Templars in the absence of the owners. No wonder they became powerful.
pretty much. I am sure once you get the wealth there are even more shenanigans to be had but the original wealth seems to come from the same old scam….usury in the form of a service fee at best and having some wealthy merchant who just dropped off the ancient equivalent of a few mil with the Templars murdered by bandits during the pilgrimage at worse…
that and they invented Kickball.
Yep. Your logic is spot-on perfect. When that wealth mushrooms, the shenanigans increase to bizarre levels. But it’s old money that rules the roost. Really old money.
That sounds like an actually really good and valuable service they provided. Hell, I’d have taken them up on that if I were getting my Crusade on.
Not too late to join up. I have my sword ready – the sword in that image above, substitute the syringe…lots of weapons to choose here…
Like the say, the easiest way to make a million dollars is to start with a million dollars. After a millennia of filling the coffers this way and through extortion (being the armed branch of the wealthiest organization on earth at a time when they realized that they needed to pay your ass off or you would chose the new pope by swordpoint mattered) and how all of that ties into the European kingdoms who were at the very least respectful and sometimes downright subservient to the church I would say that by the middle ages there was enough dough and power — should all of this be true which I don’t know — that a group like that could exert serious global influence
Consider it influenced…and then some.
Honestly I’ve never had a problem with the first Crusade, and maybe one or two others. Fuck Islam. All that he describes sounds like a market niche being filled that needed filled.
it was….like any business (especially before stuff like computers kept track of things) there were liberties taken. Shit the NYC Department of Buildings still takes bribes and they have everything accounted for on computers…I am sure a bunch of armed mercenaries in 300 ad knocked off a couple wealthy merchants.
I don’t even see it as being dishonest. Armed dudes would take your gold and give you a deposit slip in Hamburg then once you got to Jerusalem and it was conquered you had access to your funds via the receipt, since the heavily armed dudes could transport cash at much less risk. It honestly sounds like a brilliant legit business idea for the time. Now corruption, probably, but we’re human so you come to expect that.
no it is a totally legit business and, frankly, brilliant. A lot of people think that the corruption which had to exist as it exists in literally everything was systemic and lead them to be some kind of huge shadow power. Some people think that liberties were taken by corrupt members. I don’t take a side as I really have no freaking clue but the business side of the whole deal was just as you say.
also, after the conquest it wasn’t even your gold you would get. As an ongoing business they could make one trip every few months with a shit ton of gold to replenish stores. You would get your money no different than any other bank. Present proof and get paid.
“But…but…the {{{Jews}}} control the banking system!”
“In 10 years, there will be no more Israel.” – Henry Kissinger (October, 2012)
Hank’s on the team.
And if dudes died, which I suspect happened during the Crusades, they kept his deposit. That’s actually really interesting. If I owned a suit o’ armor at the time (and chances are, I would have) and a nice large horse and sword (and chances are, I would have, given my family), I’d have jumped right the hell into that business model.
I don’t know the details of how you get in. I suspect Catholicism is kind of an important part of the deal.
So if what you’re insinuating is correct, then technically, “We” as in highly influential Christians actually run things.
I’m not really seeing this as a bad thing for some reason.
At the time, everybody was Catholic. Or else. Problem solved.
Catholicism is unimportant. Masonry is a solid entryway. What I know for
sure is, they have to be able to trace your bloodline back at least to the
Crusades, and tie you into various clans/families.
It’s a great thing, my fellow traveler…absolutely fantastic, in fact. We got nothing to worry about. Leftists and others of their ilk? Not so much.
Well shit, that’s easy for me to do. I can go at least back to my grandpappy Rollo of Normandy with certainty. And if Norse culture at the time is to be taken at face value, that makes Thor my grandpa too. I should be automatically legacied at the next rush.
So this obviously dates back to about 1100 when the Templars went to clear a path to Jerusalem and make it safe for pilgrims and started acting as an international bank. Is there any precedent for this before. I mean the Roman republic had pretty much conquered the Europe by 2nd century BCE and the Roman Empire by 1st century AD had conquered the rest of the known world. They must have had some system for roman citizens to travel and get money safely from point a to point b.
Hell you’re already in…based on your military background in that special field. We’ll drink a toast over charred corpses in the not-too-distant future…
I don’t think something that major will happen in 5 years. Numerous terrorist organization have been operating right at their doorstep for decades and they didn’t suffer any serious terror attack. You can also be sure that no other nation can invade Israel without starting WW3.
Yes, there was a clear way to travel. Hell, even to the east via the Silk Road. Not saying it was a stroll in the park, but the Romans had hacked and slashed the fuck out of basically any bad guys to make their roads to far reaching empires. Kinda like them for that.
that’s right. Reformation was what like 1500 or around then? So even the brits were catholics.
Could be…but you’d have to take that up with Henry Kissinger. He’s got a little inside angle on this whole thing. Have to see how it plays out though…timetables change.
I wish somebody had sent me a post card to that effect. I’ve been missing out on accruing special benefits and honors for far too long.
Romans…interesting. What if they never really gave up their empire. What if they just went underground…and came back as the Church of Rome…
You never really quit, do ya…it’s in a guy’s blood (literally).
That’s been floated for a while. I’m on record as stating, on this very board, that a good case can be made that the Roman Empire never really died, it just expanded and diversified. We use their alphabet, their system of governance, many of their words, our traditions almost all come from them (except distinct Christian traditions), even our postal system is the same as theirs. They even had a large middle class that took vacations yearly. While the Anglosphere is Germanic in language, genetics and micro-culture, we may just be an outsourced cultural growth from the original Roman empire.
Exactamundo. What if they went underground…and came back as the Church of Rome…and they had this army, you see, the Knights Templar…
From Wikipedia – “The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, also known as the Order of Solomon’s Temple, the Knights Templar, or simply as Templars, was a Catholic military order recognised in 1139 by papal bull Omne Datum Optimum of the Holy See. The order was founded in 1119 and active from about 1129 to 1312.”
(Wikipedia got that last part wrong, about when the Templars were active, but they just do what they’re told to do like everybody else…)
1139 is a LOOOOOONG way from the fall of Rome though (Western Empire I mean, not Constantinople).
The thing about the romans unilateral use of violence is that it really is what allowed Christianity to flourish in its formative stages. As Paul made his way around preaching the shit out of a subversive religion in hostile areas the only reason no one put his head on a chopping block is because he could pull the civis romanis card. If some Ephesian pickpocket would have accidently killed Paul they could full expect a few roman Phalanx to be there in a couple months to put every man, woman and child incapable of slavehood to death, march the rest off for a hard life of servitude, burn and salt the earth. Romans didn’t take shit on a citizen being fucked with. So when the local authorities found Paul proselytizing and said put him to death he pulled the ole roman citizen card and they sent him on his way. So instead of like 3 months of preaching the good word and then a painful and unglorified death, Paul walked around until nearly 70 AD converting people. Without Paul being a roman citizen and without the romans being totally fucking ruthless when it came to their citizens abroad Christianity would be a small chapter in a book that only baristas would know about
True. But the correlation is strong. They went through some gyrations and whatnot. Popped around a mountain, went through a train tunnel, dipped underground, boffed a few whores…bingo, they resurfaced. It’s a nice story. A nice tale.
Given as the world was in that time, I have nothing wrong with the Roman approach to governance. It probably doesn’t work well today, but back then it was the best thing going since sliced toast.
agreed. I just think that it is funny that the Empire tried to snuff out Christianity and in the end it was their own policies that allowed it to survive. And now, some two millennia later, there are the romans on their knees still asking forgiveness from a statue of a jew
Uncivil Engineering!
Hanks full of shit. Just another opportunist.
Israel is going down…it’s just a question of when…and I’d bet on it. Time will reveal all, however.
In the end all he wants to do is hawk propane, and propane accessories.
My kin were Mennonites, getting their asses kicked all over Europe and doing absolutely nothing about it but moving around to avoid it when possible
You might have the wrong guy….but maybe not. Either way, that boy aint right.
We, on both mother and father’s side, were on the other end of the ass kicking spectrum until at last check, the early 1500’s in some form or another. Now we’re just average Joes, damnit.
Correction, they sent any sons beyond the oldest who was to inherit all the land.
Corruption only occurs when the actual power structure differs from the formal one. There is no reason this would have applied to the knights templar
I don’t follow
“If we use violence to stop terrorists, what makes us different from them?”
If I use violence to stop a guy from trying to kill me, does that make me morally the same as the attempted murderer? Um, no. One initiates violence, one does not. Force is not equivalently the same for all acts of force.
Same as if some guy throws the first punch. You are in every right to subdue him.
The equivocating all acts of violence as the same is a very modern conceit, usually given to us by grade school teachers who will punish a victim of bullying along with the bully, if the victim stands up and defends himself. It’s utterly silly on its face.
Silly, but damaging. Seen it too much in school, the wormy little kid is punished for defending himself. Most get out of school as misfits, some go overboard and shoot up the place.
It’s a thing I’ve been subjected to many times and it can really fuck up your life.
I was big enough that I didn’t have to deal with it, but I seen what it did to my brother. Extremely smart individual, but socially awkward. Never had the self confidence to date anyone worthwhile. Consequently, he just had is third divorce.
Constantly being reprimanded for defending yourself against a bully or outright receiving punishment for responding in the same manner to some dork who felt it was funny to give you a slap in the back of the head cultivates a “pushover” mentality that defines you as a person, and not in a good way. All of the bottled up feelings I’ve had for so many years have started resurfing and turned me into a very aggressive person. Even the slitest hint that there is a jab against me from someone and I go nuts with fury. My social life is really bad.
My situation was even worse than your brothers because I also never had a father to guide me in these situations, just a mother who became too emotional whenever I told her of my problems to the point that she wanted to do crazy things so I stopped telling her of my experiences. The only one to confine in was myself.
School can go fuck itself.
It always annoys me when I hear adults remark at how much tougher it is in the “real world”. Never do I have to stand up for myself physically, never am I taunted by a whole group of individuals. Never am I ruthlessly teased for weeks for some silly mistake. The only place where an adult would have to put up with such an environment is prison.
EDIT: Some adults(and especially women) are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of children to see things from their perspective and generally deem whatever is happening between them as “children’s play” or “fighting between children”. In some cases that’s all it is, in others it goes a lot deeper, but very few people care to look deeper into it and leave it at that considering that they did their jobs as responsible adults, and I feel that this is one of the root issues for why so many people grow up socially awkard and mentally unstable.
the “much tougher in the real world” still holds true for college students though right?
Unless you do something that a bunch of uniformed thugs aren’t fond of. In other words, if you remain quiet and in the pecking order, you’re safe. Just like high school.
The Democrats and the legions of SJW’s beg to differ.
No, you’ll just get fired from your job.
End of the day, we are always in high school, it’s just that the forms of hazing change.
Dunno. For me, anyway, college sukked more than real life, or whatever this is which followed it.
You can shut that off though. Go do your own thing. School kids don’t have that freedom or knowledge of how to deal with it.
fair enough. I have to be honest, both college and real life seem to have been a lot of fun to me…the only difference was that in college I was 18-21 and now I am older and given the choice between 18-21 and 45 i’d likely take the former.
Admittedly I did it wrong – I am a slow learner.
we all are. Some of us just accidently fucked up in reverse.
Not I, college for me was a highlight, despite me being an engineering major.
The only difference is you have more mobility as an adult – you can ‘change schools’ at will.
But you’re correct – your default hierarchical situation as an adult will default to what it was as a yute without conscious effort.
Same here, life has been a blast since 8th grade. If i could relive it again, I would.
I was a rather lazy and immature fellow. Until one corrects that, things don’t improve.
amen to that.
A lot of people spend their youth hating and/or fearing everything around them. Eventually the ire finally gets directed within (where it belongs) and only then can you begin building the life you want.
When my sons get to be of age, I think I will council them to take a year or two off before they serve a mission or go to school. There is something to be said about earning your own way shoveling dirt, living in a 12′ camp trailer that helps you have a little perspective in life.
Depends on the kid. If they don’t have a concrete plan or at least a direction, sure.
Even if they have a decent plan, I think it helps a person solidify that plan and get a perspective of what it is like to not have anything and work a shit job.
Definitely. I pursued the Custodial Arts for a few summers in HS to drive that point home.
I hand dug propane lines in Alaska in this trailer park, and threw lots of lumber around in sawmills.
Ranch hand, wrangler type as a teen. Horses, hay and awful nasty hay lofts in the middle of August that always seemed to need me to be at the top unloading bales. Gah.
That too. My dad would pay us 25 cents a bale to pick up and stack. I would hire my friends, get some girl to drive the tractor and wagon. We would do that in the evenings, then go swimming at this nearby settling pond. Reminds me of that Kid Rock song “all summer long”.
I think a lot of my teenaged years inspired that song. Kid Rock has written a few songs I’m convinced means that he hung around me during our youth.
In summer it was bales, bales, horse cleaning, horse exercise, bales, more bales, shoveling stalls, hitching up horses, unhitching horses, horse bathing, foot combouts (Shire horses), more bales and cleaning tack. In winter we varied by hitching them up to sleds instead of wagons.
We really didn’t do too much with horses. We had about 300 head of cattle though, 120 of them cows to milk every morning and night, 365/year. We grew the hay and grain for them. That lasted until just after high school when the barn burned down and my parents rented out the ground and went into trucking.
Shire Horses, all the time. Competition horses and show horses, and of course, Breeders. Great in memory, exhausting as hell when I was going through it. Paid good though and the rancher’s teenaged daughter was exactly like you’d picture a rancher’s daughter by watching old movies.
damn!
I probably looked more like Cooter from Dukes of Hazard. Mullet, wife beater shirt, listened to hard rock, spent any time off in the mountains, wheeling in the mud, or passed out by a bonfire.
Close enough for government work to “the hot rancher’s daughter” although she rarely wore anything non-conservative. Always pretty though.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/53/40/cd/5340cd7014ce143d1f462e4757e02fbc.jpg
the barn burning down was a blessing. My dad spent maybe a total of 2-3 days/year away from the farm. He was trapped for 15 years.
This is more like me in my youth. I got my mullet almost to my shoulders, and I was stockier, but you get the idea:
https://ctcmr.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/joe-dirt.jpg
You know Peter Brady, when he was teen? That’s what I looked like. Surprisingly so, like really noticeably so. My wife even said “OMG, you look so much like Peter Brady!” when she first met me (we’re both GenX, she grew up on the Brady Bunch). Not a bad look to have as a teenager. I didn’t mullet although a lot of guys did. Wore a western hat then, just like now.
now that you mention it 8th grade was great. School was easy, I had an unlimited supply of energy, was impervious to physical pain and played a lot of football
Bravo.
I was the kid always punished for defending himself. I learned how to throw a punch when the adults blinked. And I learned exactly how little trust I should have in them.
And now that generation is running the world.
Let go of your fury, brother. It is just reactive, which means it is not part of your plan and outside of your own will. I am a naturally chill person, but I am fucking *lucky* i never got arrested or put into the legal system during my “angry phase” (17-23).
The pain here is that no woman, not even your own mother, can tell you how to be a man. She may love you unconditionally, and I’m sure that she does – but it is simply impossible for her to understand your perspective and the challenges that stand in the way of your growth. Of all the difficult red pill truths, that one maybe the most important, and it is definitely one of the most difficult to swallow (it is even harder after marriage). When you can’t find your way, bring your concerns to other men – even if it is to the comments section of a place like this.
High school marked the point in time where I really started to enjoy life. Got a job, discovered money doesn’t suck, nailed my first girl, became somewhat popular and in all ways enjoyed myself.
Thanks man. It feels good to let off my chest what I’m feeling, though I would rather not make a habit out of it less I become a whiner. I’ve been doing a lot better for the past year. Lost a lot of my weight( I was very fat) and as a result I have become more social. It’s going to take many more years before the anger goes away and I catch up in terms of being socially active, but I’m trying my best. I appreciate the gesture btw.
EDIT: Not listening to my mother was the best thing I’ve ever done. I love her but she just can’t possibly understand what a boy, much less a man goes through.
” The only place where an adult would have to put up with such an environment is prison.”
And high school. High school has a lot in common with jail.
I told my six year old to fight bullying by hitting back and that I would NEVER punish him for defending himself.
You could use a mentor.
I definitely need one.
Fuck, bro… you just told the story of my youth pretty much word for word. Now I basically can’t stand people, I don’t trust much of anyone and I’m ready to go to blows if someone disrespects me in the slightest or trys to take frame from me.
Even in prison people maintain a certain level of respect. Otherwise people get shanked or riots happen.
Better yet, in Washington, if someone makes you “brace for impact” without actually striking you it is assault IV (unwanted touching) and you may defend yourself appropriately. You are not required to take a blow. Sometimes in a fight only one punch is thrown.
You are correct. I hear this from the left all the time, especially vis-a-vis the death penalty. “If killing people is wrong why do we kill people?” Well kidnapping is wrong and how do we punish that? By depriving the guilty person of his liberty.
The left doesn’t believe this “pacifism”. They don’t want us to do anything to stop terrorism except for “cheek turning/forgiveness” nonsense not because of some moral principle. They want us to take a passive approach to terror because THEY THINK WE DESERVE IT. They have their heads filled (by teachers or self) with such a hatred of the west/western civilization they can’t bring themselves to stand against those WHO THROW GAYS OF BUILDINGS!! They think Trump is worse than ISIS and think there is rational thought this.
But the hypocrisy is that if they could round up the people with the opinions shared daily on this site and charge us with a B.S. crime/physical punishment they would. They would use intimidation at least and force of government at worst, stripping us of most of our rights.
That right there is what is wrong with political correctness and shaming tactics. It removes a persons ability to peaceably defend themselves. We shut up in the arena of ideas for fear of reprisal, and when we are attacked, we are supposed to take it?
Grabbing a person out of their will vs. Grabbing a person out of their will to move them away from and ongoing vehicle.
It’s insane that the only victims of terrorism are leftists, and the only opponents of terrorism ate rightists.
I don’t know which of the two is dumber.
wait wait wait you got that all wrong. They said not to use violins on terrorists. Music that doesn’t sound like cats being anally raped by Gandhi on IV Kratom is culturally offensive to islam and we have to be sensitive where that is concerned. Violence, however, is fine. They love that shit.
I also have a problem with the notion of a “proportionate response” to physical violence. I think the notion of an *appropriate response* is much more practical and morally justified, even if an appropriate response is an overwhelming one.
There is something to be said for aggressively discouraging any reprisals or future hostilities.
Exactly. Trading punches is morally unclean. Finish it.
Agreed.
Yeah if someone is coming at me with a knife and I have access to a firearm or the kitchen utensils, I think I know which one I’m going after. Think Indiana Jones and scimitar wielding LaLa in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
This ^
http://cache.bhol-forums.co.il/upload0708/200986_153526280_%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%94.gif
Lmao. Yep that’s it.
I’m all for Shock-And-Awe.
Exactly, proportionate response is a retarded concept in Any war, hot or cultural. You use exactly what means you can get away with, no more and certainly no less.
Frankly, the article is dangerous, as it implies that we are even allowed to de-escalate. We are not. We can’t even use the left’s tactics against them, because they have legal and media cover.
Whatever tactics we use, they should neither be proportionate nor symmetric. We are not the police, we are simply a political faction. We won when our enemies are destroyed, and we are not safe until then.
Remember, the police are not our friends. They will happily kill anyone to protect their pensions.
Not our friends, but potential allies.
They may take federal money, but they exist to serve local government, and can be fired by the same. They will either be completely within our control, or within the control of our enemies. The extent to which they are independent actors is very limited, as they require budgets and political cover to fully operate.
Very good. This should be said more often instead of the same rhetoric
At the police academy we were taught to memorize the definition of “necessary force”: “Necessary” means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of
force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable
to effect the lawful purpose intended.
Note that this does not mean the least force possible. If someone tries to punch you then use the next level of force above them; you prove that you are willing to be slightly more violent than they are. Always bring a gun to a knife fight, so to say.
If I had a magic wand – I would send all the Leftist activists somewhere to North West Territories for permanent settlement. One way, no right of return. And I would not even give it a second thought.
man, that is like the lamest thing ever to do with a magic wand. I would make a mountain of gold that I could fuck a pile of Victoria secret models on
I didnt say it was a one-wish wand. You could ask for more stuff.
oh ok well in that case.
The only thing I’ve ever been able to do with my Magic Wand® is make women squirt a lot.
You should end every line like that with your name
Indeed.
victoria’s secret is that the models are mostly trannies.
just sayin’………
uhm…no
Think of those poor Eskimos up north…they’d go tranny, gay, start taking anti-depressants, etc.
Most Canadian natives are far from being likeable. I wouldnt care.
they WILL eat the yellow snow
…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0a892f1a83bdc756384ea775eaf5fa408f6ff946f1eb5abf748d0c8413a80d1.jpg
Upvote for the Geordi La Forge Eskimo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAoIZlEyo50
Tits, and/or GTFO. We don’t want your kind here.
mind you I dont speak ‘animal’ so I dont know what was said, but……
BBBBWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
I dont know what was said
First a little anti-capitalism chant. Then, a lot of yelling. The conversation after is sort of ‘He could have passed us! My bicycle is kaput! He could have run over someone!’ and other miscellaneous nonsense.
Cant stand in front of a car and then act all surprised it squishes your bike….
Especially a car driven by someone with diplomatic immunity.
the diplomatic car said:
“aside please”
no reaction
“get out of the way and stay away from the car. Let us pass”
No reaction except a girl clapping her hands and singing
“Anti Anti Anti Antikapitalista” and looks at the front window with a challenging gaze while the car tries to turn around
The car then overruns the bike to escape after they did not went out of the way
“Heyy Asshole”
Man in green says “What was that?”
Someone yells “FUCK MAAN”
triggered girl with black-green hair:
“He almost overrun us2
reporter: “What happened”
“The bike is broken. someone stood in front of the car and then he suddenly pushed the gas pedal out of nowhere and rushed away. The bike is broken and someone could have been overrun!”
She turns away in anger
the chief of the local Antifa, says he does not have a problem with riot, they just should not do it in Antifa areas where he lives and goes shopping, they better should aim for the suburbs where the rich people live.
What?
thank you.
“Terror doesn’t kill people…terrorists kill people.” – National Terror Association
“Except when terrorists terrorize people to death with terror.” — National Pedantic Association.
The Use Of Force Continuum for leftists should be, ” there’s a leftist! BAM!
Talking with subhumans will never work, the only language that these people understand is violence.
These rules of engagement are complete bullshit and just reactionary. The left is doing what they want and the right just reacts, nothing will change like that.
I am the one saying it, I don’t care about the consequences: The right needs to attack the left physically.
No, the language they understand is strength. Who has it and what will (not might) they do with it.
Reactive =/= reactionary. Reactionary tactics are very good for us.
Proportional responses are for when you want to maintain the peace. It is a small display of force to show the opponent that he will feel pain if he continues. When it’s time to win the war, proportional responses only make victory harder. They bomb the World Trade Center? You nuke Mecca. Twice. That’s how you end a war.
There is nothing wrong with killing. The ends in many cases, and especially when dealing with commies, justify the means. It will come down to this one day. Reason is nowhere to be found anymore.
“Respectable” conservatives are just as guilty as leftists for the state of this country. And they should meet the same fate for doing nothing to stop the tide of marxist fascism that’s swept over the US since the 60s.
Yes, the establishment Republican arty needs to be burnt to the ground.
Just in case you need another reminder how pressing the issue is….
“WTH? Parents ‘Explain Masturbation’ To Young Children In Viral YouTube Video”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/wth-parents-explain-masturbation-young-children-viral-youtube-video/
And just yesterday……
“Kids Magazine Instructs TEENAGERS on Anal Sex”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/magazine-instructs-teenagers-anal-sex/
That is just sick.
The best way to defeat the left is to vote for sane candidates. Any “conservative” who voted for Trump exposed themselves as a moron. Not only is he not conservative, he’s not bright, or honest, or sane.
“How can you identify a moderate? He is the man who only shoots at his own side and never at the enemy. Moderates merit friendly civility, but no respect. They are often useful, if irritating allies, but do not permit them any input into strategy and tactics or decision-making. And do not accept them as leaders except of their own moderate faction. They are considerably worse than useless in that regard because they are constantly trying to find a middle ground that quite often does not exist.”
― Vox Day, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5646cf0e192205603aeabc4d4000e96d044a2c9f5b185f226653a715626599ea.jpg
A friend told me that the great pacifist guru Swami Muktananda said, “Always turn the other cheek. If the idiot persists, the problem is he doesn’t know how to turn the other check. So show him how to turn the other cheek. Suddenly hit him with the left and he’ll turn one cheek. Then hit him with the right so he turns his other cheek. Then kick his rear end so he shows both cheeks. If you do this right at that point he will also be in deep meditation or perhaps praying to God. Bullies discover morality when good men are firm. But be very polite.” Or words to that effect.
This is well though out argument, however I might take exception to the use of illegal tactics that are employed by the left. Leftists use illegal tactics to destabilize and eventually destroy order and civilization. This is what BLM is all about, the people engaged in the violence in the BLM cause are Stalin’s “useful idiots” there is not a chance that they can win if they succeed in starting a race war, and there is no outcome to their activity which ends with their lives being improved in any way. The purpose for which the left uses such violence is to incite the right and justify massive increases in the power of the state to enslave it’s citizens. One way they do this is through gun control, If they can create enough violence and instability they hope that they call sell their gun control agenda. Once guns are confiscated, the power of the state becomes virtually unlimited. They will also use the violence as justification for government mandated social engineering across the board, to supposedly rectify the problems created by the violence that they instigated in the first place.
The left gave up on morality a long time ago, way before Trump ran for president. The “pacifist” left that we know dont even believe it either. They try to use the supposed moral high ground to rationalize violence but we’re dealing with frustrated betas looking for a cause and an identity and hopefully some pussy points in their white knighting which they’ll never get. These people need to be destroyed. They dont care about property or the rights of anyone not like them. They need to get their asses kicked so bad they never even think about showing up for a protest. Force tenfold is the only way to shutdown these faggots. Who cares about morality when they dont even believe in it? We know who’s right. Their logic and arguments are idiotic. Respond to them with sheer brute force. The alt right and the manosphere need to stop thinking like this is a battle of public image and coming out looking valiant knights of decency. We are dealing with a combination of ghetto savages and beta shitlibs. They want to take down western civilization. We need to think of this as a war and losing is not an option.
Well put, since the Leftists are mainly pussies it won’t take long to make them fold. They’ve already gone too far and made society just as miserable as their bottom tier saints.
This is a good, practical scheme. I still find it too defensive and libertarian-leaning. The Left has been pushing us where it wanted for two centuries and we should still behave “in proportion” with what they did last? Fuck it. The Left has been so powerful and controlling no force could ever match the harm they have done. Leftism should be deconstructed entirely. I’m OK with a short-term practical plan if this is necessary to gather people on the Right, but on the long run, the Left must be dismantled or the culture was will never end. The Left ultimately wants to kill us. We cannot live side by side with that.