If you think that the outcome from the trucker protest going violent would have resulted in anything other than permanent outright marshal law North Korea style, you do not understand the left or how political violence works.
The system does not fear low level (in the grand scheme of things molotov cocktail-ing a few run down buildings i…
If you think that the outcome from the trucker protest going violent would have resulted in anything other than permanent outright marshal law North Korea style, you do not understand the left or how political violence works.
The system does not fear low level (in the grand scheme of things molotov cocktail-ing a few run down buildings is low level) leftist violence, because leftist mobs are largely composed of useful idiots led by political actors who are in some way associated with the system. It is an unspoken form of negotiation for further incremental leftist games. They are not really a systemic threat (not even Trudeau wants to cede power retarded communists). Right wing violence on the other hand is an *actual* threat to the system, and they know it.
Thus, as Curtis has alluded to before, when it comes to that option...it's one-and-done. You better damn well win the entire war on day 1, or get ready for *actual* gulags (see jan 6).
There is no such thing as permanent tyranny---if men are willing to fight. The only thing that allows tyranny to thrive is cowardice.
And yes, if the Trucker protest had turned violent, the result would have been bad---because that strategy does not merge well with violence. Because the correct strategy is to STARVE liberals to death. Luckily, they have already caged themselves for us---they live in Gulags of their own construction called cities. And we can massacre them there.
No cowardice. No defeatism. And while I don't think the time for violence has yet come, no self-delusion. We win. The right has ALWAYS been better at war. Always.
"The right has ALWAYS been better at war." I would like to see some examples of this because I'm not aware of many from the past two centuries or so.
Our strength lies in our elevation of order as a primary value for society, not wanton violence, that is the tactic of the leftist and it works for him.
Successful right wing reactions are remarkably lacking in bloodshed (Pinochet only had to dispatch a few thousand commies during his reign, and that's if you believe the cooked mainstream numbers). Hitler ruled with chaotic mass violence and unnecessary/counterproductive warfare, and he was in an arguably stronger position to begin with. Compare the results.
We won't win by being impetuous. We bide our time and endure the unjust suffering imposed on us by morally bankrupt 'elites'. Once the commoners have had their fill of living in a broken and degenerate society, we will give them the order they will be begging for, and we won't even have to fight much for it.
No, asshole, I am not going to do your thinking for you. If you are dumb enough to think the left is as good at warfare as the right, if you cannot see how the concepts of duty and orderliness help in a fight, then you are just too fucking stupid to be dealt with. In fact, if you equate war with wanton violence, as you seem to do in your response, then you have already demonstrated just how ignorant you are of military strategy and military history. Orderliness and discipline are force multipliers.
And don't be daft, either, I obviously mean the right is better at war man for man. Yes, a hundred liberals can beat the crap out of the strongest soldier.
Have you ever seen a fight between the proud boys and Antifa? Antifa does not do that well. Yeah, stop fucking around with words and open your eyes. Any example from history where the left won a war against a right wing opponent required the left to have VASTLY LARGER RESOURCES (or it required the conservatives to have become soft and complacent, which is exactly what the American ruling class, our enemies, are).
Franco in Spain. Pinochet in Chile. The US vs. the USSR. Nazi Germany punching well above its weight in WWII (as did the German Empire in WWI). Anywhere the conservatives have had equal resources, they have won. They obviously punch above their weight and the counter-examples you will mention, like Russia vs. the Nazis, will all involve adversaries who had vastly larger resources. Conservatism is a force multiplier and you know it. Indeed, compare the Taliban with the Afghan government.
Go cower in fear of Antifa and a bunch of city dwellers who cannot even feed themselves without us if you want. But keep your specious reasoning, that---by the way---conveniently ignored my other points about land, food, and gender ratios, to yourself.
If you think that the outcome from the trucker protest going violent would have resulted in anything other than permanent outright marshal law North Korea style, you do not understand the left or how political violence works.
The system does not fear low level (in the grand scheme of things molotov cocktail-ing a few run down buildings is low level) leftist violence, because leftist mobs are largely composed of useful idiots led by political actors who are in some way associated with the system. It is an unspoken form of negotiation for further incremental leftist games. They are not really a systemic threat (not even Trudeau wants to cede power retarded communists). Right wing violence on the other hand is an *actual* threat to the system, and they know it.
Thus, as Curtis has alluded to before, when it comes to that option...it's one-and-done. You better damn well win the entire war on day 1, or get ready for *actual* gulags (see jan 6).
There is no such thing as permanent tyranny---if men are willing to fight. The only thing that allows tyranny to thrive is cowardice.
And yes, if the Trucker protest had turned violent, the result would have been bad---because that strategy does not merge well with violence. Because the correct strategy is to STARVE liberals to death. Luckily, they have already caged themselves for us---they live in Gulags of their own construction called cities. And we can massacre them there.
No cowardice. No defeatism. And while I don't think the time for violence has yet come, no self-delusion. We win. The right has ALWAYS been better at war. Always.
"The right has ALWAYS been better at war." I would like to see some examples of this because I'm not aware of many from the past two centuries or so.
Our strength lies in our elevation of order as a primary value for society, not wanton violence, that is the tactic of the leftist and it works for him.
Successful right wing reactions are remarkably lacking in bloodshed (Pinochet only had to dispatch a few thousand commies during his reign, and that's if you believe the cooked mainstream numbers). Hitler ruled with chaotic mass violence and unnecessary/counterproductive warfare, and he was in an arguably stronger position to begin with. Compare the results.
We won't win by being impetuous. We bide our time and endure the unjust suffering imposed on us by morally bankrupt 'elites'. Once the commoners have had their fill of living in a broken and degenerate society, we will give them the order they will be begging for, and we won't even have to fight much for it.
No, asshole, I am not going to do your thinking for you. If you are dumb enough to think the left is as good at warfare as the right, if you cannot see how the concepts of duty and orderliness help in a fight, then you are just too fucking stupid to be dealt with. In fact, if you equate war with wanton violence, as you seem to do in your response, then you have already demonstrated just how ignorant you are of military strategy and military history. Orderliness and discipline are force multipliers.
And don't be daft, either, I obviously mean the right is better at war man for man. Yes, a hundred liberals can beat the crap out of the strongest soldier.
Have you ever seen a fight between the proud boys and Antifa? Antifa does not do that well. Yeah, stop fucking around with words and open your eyes. Any example from history where the left won a war against a right wing opponent required the left to have VASTLY LARGER RESOURCES (or it required the conservatives to have become soft and complacent, which is exactly what the American ruling class, our enemies, are).
Franco in Spain. Pinochet in Chile. The US vs. the USSR. Nazi Germany punching well above its weight in WWII (as did the German Empire in WWI). Anywhere the conservatives have had equal resources, they have won. They obviously punch above their weight and the counter-examples you will mention, like Russia vs. the Nazis, will all involve adversaries who had vastly larger resources. Conservatism is a force multiplier and you know it. Indeed, compare the Taliban with the Afghan government.
Go cower in fear of Antifa and a bunch of city dwellers who cannot even feed themselves without us if you want. But keep your specious reasoning, that---by the way---conveniently ignored my other points about land, food, and gender ratios, to yourself.