Anonymous Analysis of Terrorist Movements

Or
Full Spectrum Asymmetrical Politics, a Comparative Analysis

Terrorism is politics by another means. But is it effective? ITT we analyze political terrorism based on its effectiveness IRL. Please help contribute to our collective understanding of terrorism and civil resistance.

Much has been written about the effectiveness of the use of terrorism. However the debate is sharply divided. On the one side are scholars like Robert Pape, author of the book on suicide terrorism, "Dying to Win" and Max Abrams, a counter terrorism analyst (and a jew who supports torturing Palestinians and collective punishment btw) who argue that terrorism is indeed an effective tactic against democratic* opponents.
On the other side of the spectrum are analysis like Erica Chenoweth, author of the book, "Why Civil Resistance Works" who argue that even for systemic altering demands, violent terrorism has an even less success rate than civil resistance, which is her catchall term for organized public protests, strikes, and other non-violent methods of resisting the ruling system.

First, let us examine a few "terrorist" organizations that operate or operated close to home before we examine non-White terrorist organizations. The most prominent terrorist organizations of Europe are in order of activities, The famous IRA (and its many, many splinter groups PIRA, CIRA, etc), the ETA a Basque nationalist and socialist group, the FLNC A Corsican nationalist group seeking independence from France , Revolutionäre Zellen or RZ a leftist but also anti-Zionist group that operated in Germany back in the 70s , the ARB a Breton nationalist and also anti-McDonalds organization (kek) seeking independence from France and several others.
In addition, the USA (obviously another White homeland worthy of study) has had White terrorist organizations. However they have proven far less violent than European ones. However of special note are the Christian fundamentalist AOG Army of God, an anti-Abortionist group , The Order Led by Bob Matthews, they conducted a short series of bank robberies and assassinated a jewish radio host before cornered by the FBI. Their ideology was White resistance to ZOG , the KKK who need no introduction , The Weather Underground a leftist anti-Vietnam war organization , BLM… I mean BLA a black nationalist and mar(lol)xist organization that operated in the 70s and a few others.
Please mention any notable terrorist organizations if I have missed any.

Now, of special note is the fact that none of them (with the exception of the IRA and EOKA) achieved much political success. The Basque do not have a homeland (even thought they assassinated the Prime minister of Spain in 1973), the Corsicans are not independent (even though they attacked police stations and bombed 10 banks in one day in 1979) and Israel still exists unfortunately (even though RZ helped PFLP hijack a plane and separated the kikes from the non-kikes and then were killed by other jews). And in the United States, violent anti-abortion groups may have had some success in suppressing abortion clinics through the use of terror. However, most anti-abortion success has come through legal action.
The Order failed clearly as ZOG is still in power (despite assassinating one jew and robbing some banks).
The BLA do not appear to have caused significant damage to the US government in order to create Wakanda (despite police killings).

If terrorism is an effective means of compelling democratic governments to grant political concessions, it should be surprising to see such groups fail to achieve these ends more often than not. The ETA for example existed in relative strength throughout the anti-democratic Falange regime and yet were crushed after Spain became democratic.

However, other groups have achieved relative success and these merit attention. The IRA for example is the violent wing of Sinn Fein. Sein Fein is now one of the most powerful political parties in Northern Ireland. While Ireland may not be united, this political power is certainly a political gain. And in the USA, the KKK managed to play an important role in politics for decades. These are examples of partial success for terrorist organizations.

*Democratic in the sense that elections are held. IRL, the word "democratic" is misleading. Dr. William Pierce correctly points out that a "democracy" is not really "rule by the people" but instead rule by the mass media corporations which just happen to be run by jews which influence public opinion and control the lemmings. However for the sake of brevity, I will use the term "democratic" to refer to election based governments.
Another word I use that some may be offended by is "terrorism." If you want to call it "freedom bombing", well, okay. Fine. Obviously terrorism has a negative connotation.

Attached: 4.jpg (640x427, 78.91K)

Other urls found in this thread:

exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/
youtube.com/watch?v=0I1geB7U5VI
youtube.com/watch?v=eeJ-z6lgojU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

We may not have the million in funding that these elites have in order to conduct studies and collect data. However we should be able to have a rational discussion on the effectiveness of terrorism as a means to achieve political aims. We should be able to use real life examples of terrorism and civil resistance, or "asymmetrical politics" to get a clearer picture of the effectiveness of these tactics. Perhaps through participation in this discussion, we can all learn a thing or two from each other and better understand the continuation of politics by other means.

Now, one thing this thread is NOT about is advocating acts of terrorism for any purpose. This thread is about understanding terrorism, not advocating it. Another thing this thread is not about is role playing. False edginess and other childish antics are not helpful in understanding anything. So please, if you think you're a badass who has embraced the darkness and everyone but you is a kike and you would totally start killing people now if only it were not for finals, don't post here. Go make a SIEGE thread and post there.

Next I will examine Middle Eastern terrorist organizations. Now, before I start I need to lay out some ground rules.
Literally every group I will talk about has been accused of being led by Mossad. In the interest of clarity, I will take Dr. William Pierce's position and state that these groups are by en-large legitimate terrorist organizations populated by I.slamic patriots who hate what ZOG is doing to their countrymen. Maybe they're all kikes. Maybe not. But it's not really possible to discuss their actions and success rates rationally without making the assumption that they are fighting for what they claim to be fighting for.

Al-Qaeda
AQ was once the most prominent I?slamic terrorist organization in the world. Their fundamental gripe with their target nations is Western (ZOG) interference read; bombing in the affairs of I

Attached: 11.jpg (1200x798, 200.35K)

Syria and Turkey, counter examples
The Assad government fights Al Qaeda, ISIS, and a collection of other terrorist organizations. The terrorist groups operating in Syria have conducted almost daily attacks in Damascus and elsewhere. Attacks targetting both civilian and military targets. Yet he has shown no willingness to concede to the demands of anti-government groups within Syria. Of course, the Syrian Civil War is a conventional war. Thus the rules may not apply.
In Turkey, several anti-government terrorist organizations operate. These include Al Qaeda, ISIS, Kurdish nationalist groups, as well as a collection of somewhat cringy marxist organizations like the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party Front.
Al Qaeda and ISIS excluded, most of the attacks are not indescriminate attacks against civilians. They are focused on militray targets and political targets. Yet the Kurds do not have a homeland (in Turkey anyway) and so far, the marxists have not yet achieved anything IRL.

Many argue that terrorism is not intended as a means of defeating the government or as a means of forcing political concessions directly, but as a means of instigating sectarian war between two groups. The idea being that conducting mass casualty attacks against civilians in group A will cause group A to take revenge on group B and thus alienate group B from the government, thus achieving a steady stream of recruits for Group B's terrorist organization. An alternative analysis of this is the idea that conducting attacks is intended to provoke a regime into taking harsh repressive measures against civilians, thus causing alienation against the government and helping the terrorist organization. Doubtless this is intended, but does it work?
Are there examples of this working?

Attached: Kurds Heiling.jpg (640x427, 52.09K)

I'm on my phone so I can't be of huge help, but it's important to remember not only modern terrorism but also historical and maybe contrast why the past was more successful
By all accounts, the American revolution was terrorism, with tar and feathering of tax collectors, intimidation tactics, destruction of property, etc
The French Revolution is actually where the modern term terrorism comes from, ie the reign of terror and they were successful in uprooting the government, if nothing else
1848 will forever mark the year of revolution and terrorist action, and the socialist parties in Britain, Germany, and France swelled even as they weren't entirely successful

What you say is true to some extent. Especially in the American south where hit and run guerrilla war style tactics and terrorist intimidation tactics were employed. However on the whole, the war was conventional. Let's face it, the American revolution was a secession from the British Empire in much the same way the CSA attempted to secede from the USA (and failed). Yes, obviously some elements engaged in terrorism in both wars. But it's unfair to lump all secessionist wars as terrorism.

For our understanding, terrorism can be defined as asymmetric warfare by small bands or loosely organized units that avoid conventional military engagements and instead attack soft targets with the intent to compel the political regime to make concessions to the group.
I think one thing we must understand about terrorism is that terrorists can never overthrow a System because they have nothing to replace it with. Instead, terrorists always must seek to force the system to concede to their demands.

Attached: 6.jpg (1184x784, 337.24K)

I guess I would say I don't agree that terrorism necessarily has to be non state versus state actors, and the more successful groups recognize this. The job of the terrorist isn't to overthrow the government, it's to make God bleed so to say, and show people that the facade of strength their rulers show can be countered. The terrorist doesn't succeed by demolishing his government, the French showed us that, but by turning the hearts of his compatriots and being the thin edge of the wedge toward a new goal.
Like Mao or as you mentioned Hezbollah, the group isn't there to directly challenge the ruling regime, but rather to challenge the false ideas in the heads of the people which act to keep them in line

That's resistance fighting though, not terrorism, all though the jews and the west would brand it as such. The invading force always do that. And resistance fighting that can be very effective, not terrorism

also
=AQ = CIA
not even a fucking meme
it was always a cia and saudi proxy

This is a fair point. I count it as terrorism because the attacks were conducted by suicide bombers against soldiers inside a barracks. Hezbollah never waged a conventional battle against American forces.
But you do make a fair point. The context was in resistance to an invasion. And even though it was a suicide bombing, suicide attacks aren't by definition acts of terrorism. Take the Kamikaze attacks against US ships.

No op… you need to wake up and understand what AQ really is, it's not what you think at all, you are not even fucking close…

I'll give you the basic story here, the short one as it's a big subject and it would require some time to concentrate all the facts and names into some document(yes I will probably eventually go there).
Back in the 60ies the CIA and it's friends in the middle east, feared soviet influence in the region. If you go back to even (((KSA))) then, you will notice something strange fast… The goatfuckers then seemed rather normal, quite western actually. No durkaburkas and shit like that, people wore normal clothes, listened to music and everything that people in the west did.
Now the (((USSR))) through subversion and all the shit they did tried to influence the region as they did in the west. So ask your self this
How do you counter militant atheism and communist influence?
it's very simple…

Adding like it seems like the saudis are actually turning this shit off now, with that I mean that it might look like they are hitting their "kill switch" with the aim of deradicalizing the population again, normalize them.

This is not something that is done over night, nor was radicalizing them. If this is the case which everything points at, it's going to take a decade or more to bring them down back to normal again

The SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army) another Marxist/leftist group who kidnapped Patty Hearst and are notable for pimping out their female members to blacks are another example.

It's on their soil you know, granted people didn't blow them selves up here during the war, but that was what we had to do here against the invading force too. Weather those be german or brits, it could have been both and we would have done the same to the bongs as we did with the germans.

Point is then too, civilians had to be sacrificed for the greater good, which was decided. And they died both in sabotage operations and by collective punishment of the local population when soldiers were killed or sabotage operations were committed. You go in guerrilla mode if you are overrun by a far bigger enemy, it's the only way you can keep on fighting. Then too these men were labeled terrorists, jailed as such, executed as such. Now we won the war so they became heroes, if the were the other way around they would have remained terrorists.

Granted the situation is very different though I grant that. There are still similarities but you can't really compare the two

And if want to look at somewhat successful terrorist groups, look at the South Tyrolean secessionists/autonomists (Befreiungsausschuss Südtirol) who managed to halt italianisation and secure autonomy and self-government for the region.

Well, there's no way I can argue with quad dubs.

While I have no doubt that the CIA funds terrorism, the idea that they evangelized a billion Muslims seems outlandish. Of course you can always find images of Afghans or Persians drinking alcohol in Western style buildings, driving Western cars and going to shopping malls. However there has always been a devout Muslim tradition among all Muslims in general. I'm not arguing that the CIA never funded Al Qaeda. I am saying that the religiocity of Muslims is not new.

The more I dig into the matter, the more evidence of Muslim religiocity I find.

(checked)
Antifa thugs dream of becoming SLA members. It's the next logical step for their derainged ideology.
I'd say that they fit the trend of ill disciplined leftist terrorist organizations in America. More a criminal gang than a real political terrorist organization. Only stealing money to enrich themselves and buy more drugs.


This is very interesting and thankyou for bringing it to my attention. The idea of a nationalist group taking out the power grid in a region has always fascinated me. It is true that they are partially successful if they have managed to get their non-violent wing into political power and achieve semi-autonomy.

Haha that's my family crest

Fucking Saracens

Also, I want to address your intelligent rhetorical question.
What has AQ ever accomplished to achieve their stated political aims?
Nothing really. Sure they have radicalized many Muslims, but the US is still bombing them and Israel still exists.
However this is kind of what this thread is about. Whether terrorism accomplishes anything or not. Remember, the Order also didn't accomplish anything and may have given the kikes and feds justification for anti-White acts. This doesn't mean that the Order's members were insincere or that William pierce set Bob Matthews up. It just means that the Order failed.

good post and nice digits

terrorism as it is usually implemented
Is itself actually very ineffective. What IS effective is
1) State terror: some sort of institution with overwhelming power using violence and the threat of violence to enforce its aims. Communist persecutions or even the use of antifa goons to suppress right-leaning gatherings fall under this umbrella.
2) Guerrila warfare: tying down and forcing an occupying force limited by rules of engagement to bleed out. Guerrilas can technically be easily defeated by blanket exterminations of populations, but it's generally not feasible politically even when physically possible. This what most of the successful "terrorism" in the middle east actually is - nobody gives a shit about the fear, it's the fact that the occupier is forced to commit expensive deployments of troops to the occupied areas while being unable to directly eliminate the threat that ends up draining funding and public support for the campaign.
3) Effective political violence - the actual, physical removal of your direct opposition. Terror of course plays a part in dissuading the enemy, but the key here is actually having a numerical presence that can physically disrupt and prevent any sort of opposition. This is the approach that won the fascist and national socialist movements the streets in their respective countries. The commies weren't scared into backing off as much as they were kicked the fuck out of any public space where they could assert any sort of meaningful authority.

If you just go around blowing up the occasional hotel and shooting the occasional high-profile politician nothing is going to happen. You need PRESENCE. You need the ability to make a credible threat. You need manpower, you need funds and you need the ability to directly challenge the authority of your enemy in some way. So you either need broad popular support and the ability to enforce your threats, or alternatively the physical removal of your enemy and his ability to wage politics/war.

Attached: jr2.JPG (640x346, 25.79K)

Really cause it worked for the Viet Cong.

How about you read my post again you double nigger
This does not fall under terrorism, because it's not as much about terror as it is about forcing the enemy to overextend logistically. It is a seperate thing from isolated terrorist attacks because it comes with real military presence.

I mean, I get this is difficult for burgers or burger hating vatniks to wrap around their heads, but there is more to war than tactical victory, but viet cong did not win the war directly either.

Vietnam was lost because the US was put in an untenable geopoltical situation. Escalation into the north was impossible due to threats of Russian response, and putting down charlie for good was met with strong internal commie resistance within the government and media as well as cucked cultural values. The Americans were placed in a situation where they were forced to expend a fuckload of resources to maintain control of the territory due to ever-replenishing enemy forces that operated from the back-country and civilian armies, and would instantly overtake and overpower any piece of turf left unattended or under-defended. This put an unsustainable strain on the government so they were forced to pull out. Fear had nothing to do with it, merely the fact that in order to hold ground you need an absence of enemies under arms on said ground.

Attached: 12934936_1550456308589408_1893969132_n.jpg (480x480, 42.79K)

IS IT THE JEWS OR NOT???
CHRIST, WHAT A SPERG OP IS

Nice derail attempt, CIAnigger

Kikes might be pretty unique, but when discussing strategy in general you're ultimately just another tribe of homeless sandniggers

Whatever you say Mr. Trudreau.

Attached: soy2.jpg (1440x1080, 79.43K)

I said literally none of that. This isn't cuckchan, fuck off you nigger. Reported.

Reminder freedom fighting isnt terrorism, it would be hard to call a fight for survival a fight for freedom however, its almost like a new term would need to be created.

Those aren't Saracens you uneducated retard, that's a Corsican independence movement. The symbol isn't from your family crest, your family crest comes from the symbol of Corsica.
Read a book you dumb Guido

You're quite correct in your analysis. However I am more interested in terrorism by non-state actors as it is more pertinent to our situation.
Not that I'd ever suggest anything illegal. This is all just hypothetical.

You're also correct about genocide as an effective but politically impossible means of combating terrorism. Another factor that forces governments to not commit genocide on their population is killing off your own productive population kills the state's ability to raise revenue. If the kikes tried to exterminate us today, America would collapse and their gig would be over in a flash. A flash and mushroom clouds.
That's why this thing needs to take decades.

All in all, this is a very good post.


It's true and William Pierce noted this in his Turner Diaries novel. However the Viet Cong were more akin to state terrorism than the kind of assymetric warfare that non-state actors commit. The Viet Cong were already fielding conventional armies by 1949.


Shitposting.


I hate going over this every time I post anything about terrorism.
Fine. Call it freedom fighting. That's perfectly fine. However for the sake of clarity, I will call it terrorism so everyone understands what we're talking about.

I think you're missing a key distinctiom here which is that between TERRORISM and GUERRILA WARFARE. They often get conflated for propaganda and political reasons, but they're not the same tjing. Terrorism is IRA, PLO, al-Qaeda in Europe style sporadic attacks by wodely scattered, largely independent cells commiting violence for shock political value. Guerrila warfare is action by generally local forces that involves directly contesting the presence amd authority of an occupying/"occupying" force. The VC and Iraqi or Afghan insurgents alike would assert their authority and dismantle any occupation organizational authority in the absence of constant oversight and reinforcement. The IRA or PLO never had anything near that capability, and focused on making headlines through blood and shock.

These are not the same thing because proper partisan warfare requires orders of magnitude more popular support and resources while also being significantly more effective. Occupying forces will tend to label a guerrila movement as "terrorists" to marginalize them and minimize the apparent challenge to their authority, but it does not make it so.

Attached: 1492528649246.jpg (600x655, 78.87K)

Vietnam was lost because (((rich NY elites))) funded the Russian Soviet Union, who was directly supplying Vietnam with necessities for war and did so by sending supplies through China itself and through Laos and Thailand. For all intents and purposes, it was a proxy war to economically starve the Communist block, including the commies at home who were funding it. Had JFK lived, they would have been dealt with following the escalation of war with Russia, probably under a false flag.

US should have been smarter and armed the nationalist to fight the commies and then when they won "give" them their country as a vassal state of the US.

The Vietnam war was lost because US did not go full scorched earth, much like we recently saw in Raqqa or in Fallujah. It was back stabbed at home by the MainStreamMedia who were beating the drums of anti-war priming a civilian population to be anti-american. They were hoping it would lead to a socialist revolt but the only thing that happened was the (((human rights))) movements.

The USA lost vietnam because it couldn't decide who it was fighting. The north or the south. Since it seemed to spend equal amounts of time doing both.
It installed a puppet government in the south (led by someone whose only qualification was that people in Washington knew he existed) and then overthrew said puppet government when it became unpopular.

Not that the USA should ever have been in Vietnam to begin with.
Hence why the good guys won.

Speaking of terrorism movements, anyone keeping an eye on their cash and looking for dune runes stamped or written on them? Take a picture of the part and send it to the SS. DO NOT TAKE A PICTURE OF THE ENTIRE BILL.
You will be surprised just how widespread their messaging reaches into even rural ass communities.

To me, I felt that the US hasn't had major victories after World War II because they haven't been pursuing a victory strategy. Sure, they went really aggressive a few times, but compared to their aggressiveness in World War II where they wanted to obliterate the Axis, they are like sheep. It's not because of the generals, but because of DC and the politicians. MacArthur wanted to utterly destroy Korea and even China, but DC held him back. Same case for Vietnam and every other place. Look at what happen when Trump let Mattis and his crew do whatever the fuck they wanted - ISIS has gotten their ass kicked.

Terrorism is the action taken to achieve the goal. It's not defined by the goal.
Guerrilla warfare is a strategy.

China? The USA lacked the resources to go to war with China.
Still does.

And the USA didn't even win WW2. The Soviets did. All the USA did was kerbstomp a backwards nation and even then it took them a lot of effort and lives to do it.

As for ISIS. They fell apart once the USA stopped giving them guns and money.
Can hardly say the yanks are responsible for any successes against them.

It actually is defined by the goal as terrorism is violent attacks on other people with the goal of spreading terror through a community as a means of forcing them to capitulate to demands for change. Its the reason why muslims who commit violence on behalf of their religion are terrorists by default but people like Roof who made no demands are not terrorists.

Except they are totally different and freedom fighting is typically attacks on economic points or phoned in bombs to reduce or prevent casualties…. or groups of people fighting against the security forces exclusively while putting the civilian population out of bounds.
Terrorism is when you stop a bus and kill everyone on board because they arent part of your group.

The goal of terrorism can't be itself, makes no sense.

made up fuckin word, kys op
no faggot, I'm keeping your from posting in these obvious honeypot threads that lead no where, and use spurious weasel words that already subtly bias ones minds against violent political action like (((terrorist))). The word is literally of jewish manufacture (look up the interview with Netanyahu on Firing Line where he goes to great pains to pin down a definition of terrorism. Question: why do only ZIONISTS get to define terrorism on American television? Fucking hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.jpg)
KEK IS NOT A MOVEMENT KEK IS AN AWAKENING; you will not corral us with these attempts to incitement, you spooks. Eat shit and die, everyone of you. Even if one of us here did start a (((terrorist))) cell, and you bust your little infiltrated bunch of numbnuts, and use it as pretext to get this site shoa'd, wtf happens after that, you utter fools? you gonna shut down this site? Really? What about video game chat rooms? Email? HAM radio? Drone/carrier pigeon paper-note drop? You're fucked; we are engulfing you because we are CONSUMING you; you can't stop this, it's like metabolism, retard.

The context of the conversation was about terrorism as a tool by the Viet Cong. They did indeed employ terrorism to keep people in line and they used it effectively. However I wouldn't classify the Viet Cong as non-state actors. They were the missing ling between a state and a non-state. Much like ISIS.

Also, I would say that the IRA was far less interested in blood and gore than the PLO is.
exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/


In any case, my position is that stopping a bus and killing everyone who isn't part of your group is not a winning tactic.
I won't argue over wordism. Call it whatever you like.


Jesus fucking Christ you're retarded.

Ironically, the Viet Cong were the nationalists. Most Asians don't give a fuck about Marxism. To them, it's just a magic word you say to get funding from dumbass White leftists who actually believe in that religion.

I would say that terrorism is merely a tactic. Some resistance groups use terrorism to try to compel democracies to give them concesions. Others do not.
It's perfectly possible for non-state actors to fight a government without using terrorism. However I agree that violence for violence sake is not terrorism. It's just mass killings. Terrorism is by definition, violence against non-combattants with the goal of compelling a state to conceed things to the terrorists.
Dylan Roof didn't make any demands, he wasn't part of an organization, and to be honest, he clearly wasn't all there mentally. Therefore, he cannot be classified as a terrorist in any way.
If he had been part of an organization with political goals, then he would be.

...

terrorist movemements falling for the oldest cia trick in the book
how about I give you an older jewish trick lol, as old as it can get
youtube.com/watch?v=0I1geB7U5VI

how about these apples

På romsdal kysten styreer dere fram, jeg er fra romsdalskysten eller bestefaren min

det er einar møre jarl

One older story I really thought was interesting is that of Salvatore Giuliano the Sicilian bandit. Surely bandit and terrorist are different occupations. But this guy transcended normal thievery. He was definitely a terrorist in the eyes of the government. Him and his band attacked the police directly many times, often winning battles. His knowledge of the mountains and ability to move and hide in them made him pretty much unstoppable for a few years. The ways his band made their money were good examples of thuggish strong arming, but the way he out maneuvered and fought off the literally 1000s of carabinieri they sent after him counts for something. He also later campaigned and fought for Sicilian independence during allied occupation. And for a nice bonus he was involved with firing machine guns into a Commie mayday celebration. I am probably misquoting stories I read a while back. I encourage reading up on this guy.

Attached: SalvatoreGiuliano.jpg (209x307, 17.73K)

who should sing me to the other side, when each thread I make they are so cold they are so cold

I dunno who that guy is, but if they are after him, just tell him to wrap stuff on his feet then walk there, we all have to walk there, in front of her, hel

she will send you were you need to go afterwards, if you are only so lucky to go to gimle ie you are without betrayal in your life. Odin will come there after ragnarøk

I for once welcome Odin in Gimle, then I look at the anglos and realize I have to fight more, and I welcome it, fucking faggots

pretty sure I have made a lot of hate speech rightnow just saying….
you really want us to do our thing again don't you?

the serpent gnaws in the ground, meaningless to you, it's nidhogg gnaws at you
youtube.com/watch?v=eeJ-z6lgojU

I'm scared they are going to get me, but you just carve a valknot in your door frame, this way they cant get you

so they try to come here, the police, but they stop there outside. they don't even understand, so user I will come….. no… user get out here… how come? just get out heree… yes. no..get out here again… can't enter huh? just get out here..

or what lillestrøm? scared yet?

Not a single response about snackbars defacing money to send messages. Makes you think.

The levels of irony here.

Eat shit jew.

Interesting story. One thing that has always irked me is just how amoral so many in Fascist Italy were. ZOG was forced to rely on the Italian police to police Sicily. They should have used the opportunity to sabotage them or something.
But what can ya do?

He was an Italian Robinhood. The fact that he won the loyalty of the peasants in his area is an important thing to note and study. Without the information they gave him and the assistance against local police they provided, he would not have been half as effective as he was.

glorious bump

The goal is to make the government crack down on the population so that they become angered and are willing to be recruited. The very counter response to it is what they desire.

Attached: Dr-No-William-Pierce.PNG (1556x1008 1.36 MB, 302.48K)

what the fuck? the only terrorist is salafi jihadism and their ideology is takfiri extremism