Acceptable targets for political violence -

[wtfNeedSignUp]

So this is probably going to be autistic and put me on some goverment watch list. The thing I wonder about is, when there is no other political recourse but violence, what are the acceptable targets for it?
Obviously targeting random people who are at best tangently connected to the problem is completely idiotic and counter productive, but targeting the people at the top might be completely impractical. So what are the targets that will get a change going, rather than some misguided revenge? (to be clear, it's something that I've been wondering from the comments in the thread about the Christchurch shooting)

This thread is brought by the sword saint Otoya Yamaguchi:

 

[REGENDarySumanai]

Conservatives, Catholics, white people, Trump voters, anyone wearing a MAGA hat.
Not acceptable: ANTIFA

Note: Sarcasm is in full effect if your brain isn't working today.

 

[TheYellowKing]

Vegans. Political violence is wrong in every other scenario.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Everybody is an acceptable target. Power flows from the barrel of a gun.

 

[Dr. Troon]

Vegans. Political violence is wrong in every other scenario.

This and then some.

 

[Bee Head]

I don't know. Genuine pedophiles?

 

[Oskar Dirlewanger]

- nerds
- jews
- christians

Honestly nerd holocaust would be enough though, since judaism and its sects has only one major tenet hidden beneath the masquerade of "morality": elevating the nerd ("priest") as the single codifier of social norms.

 

[Otterly]

What sort of situation are you thinking of when you say political violence being the only option?

 

[Trashfire Garbagefuck]

that guy who cut me off the other day

 

[Takodachi]

I was gonna say commies, but they arent even human, so it cant be considered violence.

 

[???]

Political violence is counter-productive to your cause. From a purely practical perspective, there are no legitimate targets for political violence. However the physical (tactical, operational, and strategic) and mental benefits of assassinating a leader may outweigh the moral disadvantage of using violence to achieve a political end.

ISIS was all about violence against any and all opponents, and now they don't exist. Meanwhile Hezbollah was judicious in their use of violence, and they are stronger than ever.

I can go into greater detail and offer citations if you are interested.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

What sort of situation are you thinking of when you say political violence being the only option?

A situation where a group is at major risk and cannot do anything to avert it except (maybe) resorting to violence. Yeah it can be debated when it's true, but it's not an outlandish scenario.

 

[Syaoran Li]

The issue with this premise is that if you start thinking targeting one group for political violence is fine and acceptable, then all ideologies and groups become acceptable targets for political violence. The /pol/ tards and SJW's of Current Year are not the Waffen SS and Red Army of the 1940's no matter how hard they LARP as it.

The problem with the Woke Left is that they are convinced that life is some Marvel-esque struggle between good and evil and that it should be fine to violently assault people for their opinions and beliefs, instead of doing the sensible thing and just calling those people assholes and idiots instead. Speech is not violence.

The First Amendment exists for this reason, no matter how much the Woke Corporatists go out of their way to subvert it.

If someone wants to go out and publicly express their love of white supremacy, communism, or whatever their fucktard ideology of choice is, they have that right. And I have the right to publicly call them a dickhead and a moron for thinking that and vice versa.

Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave and the slave ladies are rolling on top of him in Current Year America.

 

[???]

@wtfNeedSignUp I recommend that you read William Lind's work. Mr. Lind wrote a manual on 4th Generation Warfare (4GW), and a book which explores what a second American civil war might look like through the lens of 4GW. They are both very short and an easy reads, check them out.

Resources – traditionalRIGHT

www.traditionalright.com

The traditionalRIGHT staff wish to provide resources and list essential reading material for the Traditionalist in the modern age.

Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Marine Corps Field Manuals

These FMs were written by a series of seminars on 4GW which Mr. Lind led before his retirement, mostly made up of US Marine Corps officers. Why were they issued by the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Marine Corps? Because they could not write official manuals for the US Marine Corps, and also because, as anyone on the traditional right should understand, it is important to keep the old empires alive, even if only as shadows.

Victoria – traditionalRIGHT

www.traditionalright.com

On April 30, 1995, William S. Lind published an op ed in The Washington Post that foresaw a future breakup of the United States, driven by multiculturalism. The piece described not only America’s second civil war, but also a recovery of our traditional, Western, Christian culture. That cultural and moral recovery was led by a new country located in the northeast, which named itself Victoria because it had returned to Victorian values.


Mr. Lind’s op ed has since been turned into a book, Victoria: A Novel of Fourth Generation War, by “Thomas Hobbes,” the well-known theorist of the state and author of Leviathan.[//quote]

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

Anyone who doesn't agree with me

 

[Oban Lazcano Kamz]

literally everybody, no exceptions. complete and total genocide

 

[No Exit]

The acceptable targets of violence are whoever you can convince the masses to hate. If you believe you have whatever group of people who you want to represent's best interest in mind then it's fine. Might change in hindsight a few years later but if none of them are around to complain then it's not really an issue.

Also all high-standing political opponents since they always come back with a vengeance.

 

[DumbDude42]

but targeting the people at the top might be completely impractical

so slowly work your way down the ladder until it becomes practical.
like yeah, assassinating a country's president is unlikely to succeed because he's gonna be protected and watched by bodyguards day and night. but does the same apply to the chairman of his political party? or the vice chairman? or maybe the head of the party affiliated newspaper?

you get the idea. point is, modern day political parties are not like the CCCP under stalin or the NSDAP under hitler, where it's literally one all-powerful leader driving all decisions and exercising unconditional power. today there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of people involved in decision making processes at various levels of importance, and the vast majority of them do not have the kind of protection that the top tier public figureheads enjoy.

 

[NIGGO KILLA]

Open season on NAMBLA

 

[Non-Expert!]

The only target you should hit, is a person who has made himself a target, by threatening you.

Tread carefully with discussions like these. You are not as anonymous as you think.