Violence

Why aren't we using force to get rid of our enemies. It's a legitimate tool and will prove very effective of permanently getting rid of the opposition. Someone please explain.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JYbRZhymD5A
youtube.com/watch?v=2wiayNvtxR8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

the cucked left need to feel moraly superior (while leaving in closed communities) so they took what they understand of christianity and applied it politically.
other cheek meme, god count to 1 meme, brothers & sisters with humanity meme.

They took their shit from protestants then.
For anyone who's actually read the bible, the new and old testament support genocide.

-Noahs arc, killing all degenerates.
-Mosses, killing the first born of all Egyptian families.
-The second coming of Jesus where all non-Christians will die and burn in hell forever.

The Bible teaches us to kill to get rid of Non-Christians.

There's nothing wrong with defending yourself using violence. In fact, it's immoral not to do so against violent people, because you are rewarding and enabling their initiation of violence against others.

It's the initiation of force which is the problem.

they let people who aren't citizens be citizens

There is no way that I would ever consider even one of those animals in the photo to be my equal, my brethren, or brother. Humans are not all the same. And as in the natural world predators must be identified and protected against. How many rabbits call for tolerance with foxes?

Because we have no organization, and no real, clear ideal to rally around. Furthermore, our governments are full of left wing extremists who ensure that their brownshirts DO have all that, but who come down like a ton of bricks on anyone even attempting to do the same on the right.

So what we're essentially waiting for is the inevitable breakdown of this corrupt system, after which we will be able to set this sort of thing up unimpeded.

It's not about initiating violence, it's about distinguishing whether we have the ok to use the violence.

For example, imagine all the bad people in the world who are just pure evil and will be net negatives their whole lives. If we could get rid of them with one button, then its obvious to press it.

In this instance it's clear that we can get rid of them without their initiation of violence.
So it's about determining if this person needs to be killed, whether they've done it or not.

Now violence doesn't mean we have to kill them, maybe force them into a little box where they'll never get in our way again and die there, like prison, which is already being done.
So why don't we apply our violence to our political enemies who'll just hinder us?

>Why aren't we using force to get rid of our enemies.

Because we have been brainwashed than violence by itself is something evil to be avoided, rather than a tool to achieve something. Is a nice conditioning to keep the sheeple docile.

>For example, imagine all the bad people in the world who are just pure evil and will be net negatives their whole lives.

And you want to determine this how exactly? I'm not against killing evil people, I'm saying that it's near impossible to determine that without action from their side, in the form of the initiation of force.

But we can orgainze, they're doing it in South Africa of all places, a white only town called Oriana.
Literally a place for only good whites, and they are selective about what people think.

youtube.com/watch?v=JYbRZhymD5A An example of a structure to get out of the current system and build our own within.

While things like this are already going on in america,
youtube.com/watch?v=2wiayNvtxR8
Instead its Muslims taking control of western countries and making their own little segregate communities waiting to strike and take control when we get weak.

We need to build our strength now and be prepared to use as much force as possible

The example it self isn't meant to signify what we're meant to do. There's no way to determine all the intentions of people without knowing their background.
However the example is meant to signify what you should do if given this scenario.

We can test people to distinguish their values, those who fail should be removed until fixed, while we let in those who are good. Something they had a couple decades ago called a immigration testing system, something that we should be applying to our own citizens and forcing them to fix their shit or you'll get whats going on in western civilizations today. If we used forced to stop people from getting these faggot and stupid ideals, we'd be so successful right now.

We'd have a unified collective mindset and work together to achieve success and not have such disorganization. We should be enforcing our ideals.

I guess thread is dead, kind of disappointing.

You're a lower IQ subhuman if you actually think violence is the most effective way to solve things.

I never said it was the most effective, as all tools each is best used on specific scenarios. Buts with this cucked ideal of never using violence when its obviously necessary?

>there's no way to do this
>we should test people

You haven't solved the problem, stop living in a fantasy world. You can't screen for evil without action from the side of the people with some sort of standardized test. The ultimate test already exists. The test is called civilization and you fail it if you initiate force.

>like yeah, if the BIGGEST PROBLEM KNOWN TO MAN didn't exist, then step 2

It just doesn't work like that. We already know that evil people are raised by evil parents. You can't force people to be good, all you can do is not reward evil and punish the initiation of force.

finish reading the sentence.
>There's no way to determine all the intentions of people without knowing their background.

If you know their background you can predict their actions.
>You can't screen for evil
So if I read the quarran and I can't assume that a Muslim wont follow that.
This is the real world, what people believe is what they will do. So we should act before they do.
If Russia plans to invade Europe is it a better strategy to wait till they invade or attack when their weakest and get the surprise advantage.

This is something called preemptive action you fucking retard.

Yeah, immigration is terrible. Everyone fucking knows that you goddamn mongoloid. The problem is evil people WITHIN OUR SOCIETY, jesus christ how are you not getting this. I don't care what muslims do in their own nations.

How about you get them out of your country. It's that easy.
>White flight
When white people start feeling threatened in their environment they leave, it's called natural instincts to avoid danger.
This is something consistent within all people.

So if we can actively search for these people and get rid of them, not only will we be getting rid of them our selves but they'll leave of their own accord out of fear.

If the whole country is a dangerous environment they'll leave the country. It really is that easy. It's difficult to organize that, but the solution is not hard.

The white ‘Murican jezuz loves murder

Because then other people will use force against you and you know you'll get blown the fuck out is the only reason. That's why the police can do whatever they want to you and you don't do shit to them.

Your avoidance and refusal to look at your own environment first tells me that there's something fundamentally wrong in your environment. Why are you so insistent on the initiation of force? Did you parents beat you to "make you good" as a child? Where does this magical thinking come from? What is so terrible in your childhood that you think violence is universally GOOD and that the bad people are OUTSIDE of this GOOD violent environment you're in.

Here's a hint: The bad people are in the house.

They're already using force though. We should build our selves up and prepare for a fight.
The video of Oriana is a perfect example of what we should be doing.

It's more like necessary killing, murder is killing for one's own benefit, but is objectively wrong. While this is getting rid of parasites.

>they're doing it in South Africa of all places
I think you can't see the forest for the trees. They're doing it in SA because it's gotten so bad that they have no other choice - if they do nothing, they'll get hunted down and killed.

Organization is not happening in Europe and North America because if we sit around and do nothing, nothing bad happens to most of us. If you want to organize people, you need to give them a cause that're more worth rallying around than the Superbowl.

Violence is neither good or bad, it's a tool.

When one comes into your house to steal from you do you talk to the man to leave, or do you your self, or some external thing force him to leave (that is violence).
That's a clear example of using violence for something fundamentally good.
But we could use violence to murder new born babies for no reason as well, something fundamentally bad.
This shows violence is neither good or bad, it's just a tool.
You're refusal to use violence will result in you wasting time and energy for something that's very obvious. The question is how many people will have to needlessly die for your weakness.

State has a monopoly on violence.

They want this.

The problem with waiting around is that you're allowing the people who're degenerates to live off you like parasites and eventually out number you.

What would happen if the productive people decided to segregate them selves in america away from all the degenerate parasites. It would weaken them, and perhaps even get rid of them if not some. That's some clear intensive to do this.

Violence is why the left is DYING

They over played their hand

Fuck me, are you now explaining THE ARGUMENT YOU'VE BEEN ARGUING AGAINST as an argument FOR the initiation of force? You deserve bad things happening to you.

>That's some clear incentive to do this
To you. Now convince your neighbors that it's as clear as you say. If it's easy, you'll be back in 10 minutes with some new recruits.

I'll be waiting.

That's a good argument against the use of violence currently as it might not be called for in the current sets of debates.

However a question I have is why wouldn't violence be more useful when the country already 90% believes in what you're fighting for and the people you're up against just want to destroy your country?

You wouldn't know a good argument if it hit you in the face. Please read up on formal logic and the difference between attacking and defending, this is just painful to watch. Molyneux made an entire book, the art of the argument, just for people like you. It simplifies the entry into logical thinking.

>Why aren't we using force to get rid of our enemies
>wanting your enemy to win
Get on the Trudeau train user

Why are people here then? Why are more coming to pol? Why can someone like Donald Trump win? Why are these things like ecelebs becoming a thing?
This is the growth of communities for these our way of thinking, I'll agree and say it'll take time to get there. However it is happening and we need to make it happen faster.

A desire for truth and freedom, not more of the same idiots trying to exert power over others through the initiation of force.

It's easy to post on an anonymous forum. It's easy to vote in a secret ballot. It's easy to sit in front of a camera and let people throw money at you. It's much harder to get your nose broken, or worse. People won't get out there and fight unless there's a good reason... like someone else coming to break your bones first. Get the picture?

Successful implementation of organized violence requires a very high level of coordination. All of our means of information distribution have been interdicted by an enemy tribe, preventing us from openly coordinating against our racial enemies. We can't even coordinate enough to have a successful street protest, let alone a successful paramilitary ethnic cleansing operation. First we must establish cohesive IRL activist groups, once our groups get large enough, ethnic cleansing and redistribution of territory will naturally follow.

Meh, just end taxation and natural selection will take care of the rest. Just arm yourselves, form militias and wait 3 months for all these useless fucks to starve without welfare. Do you honestly believe niggers can survive on their own?

An argument is flawed when you can point out a contradiction in the statement. That being if the argument's assumptions work against each other, or that there is an example that proves the argument wrong.

Many of the flaws you brought up are wrong in and of them selves. Here I give you an example that makes you're argument flawed .
Here I answer your question here .
Learn how to formulate an argument.

An example of a real argument is 1 + 1 = 2.
Which is saying PQ which can be said as 2=1+1 which means QP. A true and valid argument learn how to do that.

>smelly man feet near the food on the floor
absolutely disgusting

Maybe not in the Northern European winter, but they will have to be physically removed from Southern Europe and the Southern United States. We also have substantial colonies of self-sufficient East Asians and South Asians who will need to be removed by force.

You literally JUST posted in response to
>Violence is why the left is DYING

That's an assertion, but it's not backed up by anything, so it's not an argument at all. 1+1=2 and 2=1+1 are logically provable. An assertion without a kind of proof is just someone making noise. You say we need to use violence to solve the problem of evil people, but you still haven't said how you plan on doing this. It's a Utopian fantasy.

Another very good argument.
We should understand that violence isn't necessary now, however I'm saying it's something to consider and when the time comes, that being when we're in power we should use it to stop this from ever happening again.

For now we should collect our resources and build networks exclusively for ourselves such as the enemies have done through their, "black only scholarships", or "female empowerment movements". We must make our selves stronger.

Nah, think about it. Why are they outbreeding us? Because of welfare and other means from socialism. Without taxation, what are they going to do? They can't afford cars, they can't grow food beyond maybe sustenance farming for the most intelligent.

Wars cost money, it's easier to just let them go their own way and kill them if they try to steal from or harm others. That way only the most intelligent, like Ben Carson, would survive.

This is Molyneux tactic of forcing people to have to prove everything, even obvious things that should clearly known, and when you can't show the numbers you're wrong.
For example killing people lowers the population is an argument, this is clearly obvious, however Molyneux would have you have to show that the population numbers are actually going down. You'd still be right, but it's so obvious that you shouldn't have to prove it.

Holy fuck dude, we JUST established 1+1=2 and 2=1+1, which is a logical proof that A = B. That means you can say things like all men are mortal, socrates is a man, so socrates must be mortal, which is expressed as If A, then B. A, so B. You can't just ignore universality, because ALL TRUTHS ARE UNIVERSAL.

Proofs don't necessarily mean physical evidence.

>Why aren't we using force
Because you have no force to use.

I really wish Sup Forumstards would start a violent revolution just so that I could see your brains splattered all over the street when the police shut you down.

I have this theory.
The left will sperg out until the right finally claims its place and becomes violent but the left will never start violence.
The left seems to largely be built on moral superiority.

This tactic specifically works to act as a way to stop people from using statements that are common knowledge, since you would have to look for the information to prove something very fundamental.
Since this is hard to do on the spot, however acts as a easy way for Molyneux to say you're argument is invalid.

Which would be the case for "killing people lowers the population",you would have to get data to prove that information, no matter how obvious the statement seems. It's a cheap tactic by a stupid man.

There are cases where there are other factors to consider, however this is a easy way to win an argument even when you're wrong.

I'll try to explain this in a simplified manner, there's a reason these books are thick.

There are effectively 3 main components to solving logic problems. Rules, facts and goals. Rules are universal statements, such as all men are mortal. Facts are known truths, such as I am a man. Goals are questions you ask which you can then check with the facts against the rules. This is what I meant by all truth is universal. You can't establish a universal rule with exceptions to it.

For example:
>rule
Theft is the taking of property without the consent of the owner
>fact
Taxation is the taking of money without the consent of the owner
>goal
Is taxation theft? To answer that, we need to go through a process which is called unification. It's essentially seeing if the fact contains terms which apply to the rule. In this case, we want to see if Theft and Taxation unify. The conditions for that are: "Taking of property" and "without consent of the owner.

theft(X) :- take(Property), not(owner(Consent)). for X = taxation.

Money is a form of property, so the rule holds up to that point. For consent, we want to negate it so that if the owner(Consent) is false, true. Because the logical opposite of a statement must have the opposite result, as contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time. Therefore we can say that logically speaking, by its very definition, taxation is theft.

Is this making sense?

>Nah, think about it. Why are they outbreeding us? Because of welfare and other means from socialism. Without taxation, what are they going to do? They can't afford cars, they can't grow food beyond maybe sustenance farming for the most intelligent.
They will just do whatever they do in their own countries, where they manage to breed just fine without welfare. You are wrong to assume that a very highly developed high-tech economy is necessary to sustain a large population of browns. You might be able to starve them out in the north, but they will need to be manually removed from everywhere to your south.
>Wars cost money, it's easier to just let them go their own way and kill them if they try to steal from or harm others.
We aren't killing the invaders merely for fun. A European man needs territory and property in order to attract a highly demanding European female to birth his children. Our men simply need lebensraum, and enemy invaders have occupied a substantial amount of our most valuable territory. We are on the verge of a great Völkerwanderung, an age of inter-European colonialism. White men from America will migrate and seize non-white property in Europe, Europeans will do likewise in the new world. Once we accept that non-Europeans are not fully human and strip the female defenders of non-whites of their political rights, we will see one of the largest campaigns of ethnic cleansing and property redistribution in history, a new Viking age.
>That way only the most intelligent, like Ben Carson, would survive.
The most intelligent enemy invaders must be the first who are targeted for destruction, as they serve as an officer class for the others.

better bin that knife before you get arrested ahmed

But you see, blacks are murdering each other at an alarming rate but they breed so fast that their population keeps growing anyway. Therefore we can't say killing people lowers the population as a general rule. Killing MORE people than are born, that would be true.

Do you see the difference? The population is a quantifiable fact, and people breeding faster than they kill will still increase the population total. However, if more people are killed than are being born, the total population number goes down. You can establish logical rules, then go look for facts to prove them. That's what a hypothesis is. If people just throw around statements without a need for proof, everyone can just claim anything like I'm a flying pink elephant or there are more than 2 genders.

>They will just do whatever they do in their own countries, where they manage to breed just fine without welfare.

Foreign aid is also welfare, so they'd just die.

If your answer for enemies is only force then you'll just keep searching for more enemies until only you are left and everyone else is your enemy

The statement didn't give the context of a breeding population. It just said a population, indicating it's finite. Killing people is known to lower the population, therefore killing people will lower the population.

Something obvious. not you're made up context to validate yourself.

You are massively under-estimating non-whites with average IQ's in the middling 80-90 range. They are perfectly capable of surviving on their own and even posing a viable military threat to us. Perhaps Netherlands and other parts of Northern Europe have simply attracted the stupidest and laziest of non-white colonists due to their generous welfare states, but in many regions elsewhere, non-whites constitute a viable enemy military occupation force which will need to be actively rooted out and destroyed.

The statement never indicates that force is the only option, it states its an option that can be used for specific situations. One option that is said shouldn't ever be used, the question is why not use it.

You didn't specify that you were talking about some absurd abstract fantasy world, how can I know what you think if you don't state it openly and change the rules afterward? It's not an argument.

An offensive war is much, much more expensive than a defensive one. Like I said, militias.

>muh shekels
A war of conquest pays for itself. What is the total value which will be recovered by the liberation and cleansing of Rotterdam? How much are you willing to invest into seizing Rotterdam if you are guaranteed a substantial piece of prime riverside real-estate at the end of the campaign? Are you simply a coward or what?

Really? How much did America make on Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan then?

Because believe it or not the majority of people do not like violence and will condemn its use. In the end people that don’t like violence will resort to it in order to stop people from abusing it as a tool of political correction.

We saw this when the left tried to use violence and guilt against white people, people saw what they were doing and stood against it at the polls.

>retaking your own territory from enemy invaders is the same as fighting pointless mercenary wars for ZOG on the other side of the planet
Are you serious?