The Tyrant & The King

This addresses some reactions on Zig Forums to yet another migrant caravan. ITT is a cross between strategy and self-improvement.

In Jungian psychology, every archetype has an inverse which maintains the same form but with opposite values. The King is the masculine spirit that wants to create life and beauty and seeks justice to preserve the goodness in this world. The King does not want to rule over anyone but rather wishes for all men to follow their own wills, while respecting the wills of others, for that is what it means to be a man. The Tyrant is the inverse of the King: instead of creating freedom through life, the Tyrant creates order by way of death; he destroys what is beautiful because he cannot control it; and replaces justice with impulsive punishment (subjective, rather than objective). While the King is strong and does not need to rule to make a better world, the Tyrant is the image of weakness, and would give up the future to ease the pain of the present.

It is unfortunate that there are people here, who in their hearts want justice and for Good to prevail, reach a breaking point and lash out: . We all feel the urge the lash out. However, we all know testosterone levels are decreasing in the west, and testosterone is of course what allows men to control their emotions and impulses. If things do get worse and people along the border have to defend themselves, then of course I respect their strength and sense of duty. However, the people who scream for blood on the internet, I do not respect. They are clearly the writings of a man who has never had defend himself or anyone else, and may very well have nothing worth defending in his life (another reason to find a beautiful wife).

I don't want to speculate too much, but common sense and precedent says that "shooting first" at the illegals will not help us. You will get a moment of satisfaction when you read the headline about five dead illegals (never mind the white men that were also shot) followed by yet more outrage when the federal government begins protecting "potential citizens", maybe the federal government will be against it, but the local governments in border states are looking for any excuse to "rebel" a little, see: California. Logistics wise, we cannot stop the caravan ourselves and even if we kill 50 or so, more than that many die just en route to the border, and it deters no one. Strategically, it is of no interest. Getting mad and showing weakness is just inviting the enemy to capitalize on it. Deportation in general does not work, illegals just keep returning, sometimes five or six times apiece after being sent back. The only things of strategic interest are the things that bring them here: minimum wage laws that give them illegal jobs, a lack of automation giving them seasonal ag labor, and welfare. If you find yourself in the throes of uncontrollable rage when reading these headlines, consider finding some way to get in control of your impulses before you expose yourself on the internet.

Attached: Damocles-Westall.jpg (803x657, 132.66K)

I really feel a trope of 50 armed citizens marching to the border will do much more good than bad. I don't see any law enforcement agency working against them and I think the presence of just a few men will spawn a wave of followers.
I think with just 50 armed men, a wall of thousands will quickly form. I think it would do more to unite Americans than divide. I think it's time we stood the fuck up and defended our God damned nation and stopped relying on an inept and subverted government.

entire post muh pr.
kys juden.

The government steps up control whenever this happens. When 20 guys stand up to the BLM over grazing laws, the feds will back off from that single confrontation, and then bring the hammer down on the next (Malheur refuge occupation). I'm open to whatever works: if 50 armed citizens marching to the border has a bigger impact on illegal border crossings then cutting welfare benefits does, then okay, we can consider that to be a viable option.

What's the argument against PR anyway? It's not like we're compromising on any principles here.

This is correct.

Yeah sure. But we need to attain political power to do that now don't we.

Except that public perception is everything in politics. Pic related. Though I'll bet you're confused as to how.

Attached: IRA.jpg (550x364, 72.4K)

Pic related brings them here

Attached: smugjew-010.jpg (299x300, 29.16K)

I'd say it's more like free ourselves from political control. PRfagging doesn't necessarily mean compromising on values, but attaining political power basically always tends towards compromise. We're better off without.

Tell me these two are not working in tandum? Sage fuck beaners and jews

Not necessarily. Adolf Hitler attained political power without compromising his positions. Many anons have this idea that in order to occupy any political position, you must compromise your core beliefs in order to appeal to "the masses"
This is not true. Firstly, it is easy to get into local positions of power because almost no one participates in local elections. Simply articulate your political positions with confidence and talk about issues that actually matter to most people. This is not cucking because many of the issues that matter to people are issues that we feel strongly about already. Immigration, public projects, social issues, and financial security. Everyone has this ridiculous notion that attaining political power means running for president. That will simply never happen. Seize control of local positions and build up bases of support when while we are able. Or we will regret it later.

The other issue that people bring up is;

That is also not true. While no, you will never pass a law doing anything like that, you don't need to support anything that you disagree with.
Also, note that I said "support" instead of "vote for"
Voting is kabuki theater. It's what goes on behind the scenes that is important.

Even seizing control of a small region or regions in the USA would go a long way towards helping our cause in the long run.

It's the option on the table right now and will have an impact.
I really think there would be a dramatic snowball effect with just a small group heading that way. Of course the media-kikes would do everything in their power to black it out, but word would get out and many men would step up. I could see this being the tipping point, and obviously so could the soros-jew.