The road Ahead

It was always low IQ men, believing in some ridiculous ideology, using primitive weapon systems and extreme brutality that changed the status quo. After this process was completed the leaders of them needed to find ways how to kill many of the revolutionaries before they become disillusioned with the ridiculous ideology that they indoctrinated them with… and then they had power. When they will had power they realised that to maintain it they will have to do the same corrupt actions that all people with power did before them to keep society under control. (What European Aristocrats did in the past, what jews are doing today) The Sumerian swindle via the financial system plus dogmatic religious indoctrination via representatives of the some unquestionable demiurge.

It seems to me that all of human history is 20% of people somehow enslaving 80%. If the 80% had realised their situation / had the full information they would have revolted. So the job of the 20% was to control the information / awareness of the 80% to keep them contempt in whatever situation they were in or to kill them. Thats where all the Abrahamisms come from.

The problem today is much much worse! Today we live in a system where billions of people are literally breed so that (((elites))) have a reason to steal from the working class under the idea that we need the money to feed the poor or go to war or do any other thing that requires more centralisation of power and grater opportunity for theft.

The real problem that frightens me is not the elites the problem is the billions of NPC / Goym / Golem which are literally being breed and growing in numbers every day. < 70 IQ planet in 2050. Think about that folks 4 billion negros by 2050 and a Islamic Europe. What are we going to do about that? Its will be interesting times ahead.

Attached: 1558521896469.jpg (744x992, 71.88K)

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/future/story/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

What really frightens me is the next generation of multi-billionaires children and what the world is going to look like under their stewardship. This isn't the typical story that every nouveau riche family knows of "10 generations to make it, one generation to break it" we're talking about the leaders of tomorrow are going to be coming from family wealth that is too big too fail. And you've all seen them, they're absolute clowns.

The actions of few and the following mass is what gets turned to "national" "global" history and all it's implications.
You think that china will massively protest out of nowhere? no, they get told to revolt, just like we are telling others to revolt.
The actions of few affect the many. controlling information is not the way of the future, information (like degenerate literature) gets presented, we all agree it's trash and bury it in the trashpile. If you want you could dig it up, but again, nobody would care cause it's trash. 90% of commonly accepted history is jews controlling information, the goyim finding out, and then being expelled only to return tomorrow, rinse and repeat. This time there's not going to an expulsion or a tomorrow, once all the goyim know, the truth will be carved onto their stone grave heads.

sage for blackpill demoralization b8

You have a shitty understanding of history. The European aristocracy didnt "enslave" the bottom 80% of Europeans. Society under feudalism was set up based on hierarchy a was natural and healthy. Tradition was kept in tact, the kingdom was culturally and racially homogeneous and peasants (despite judeo-masonic propaganda) enjoyed a healthy work-life balance.

The kind of revolution your talking about only happened with the advent of the enlightenment, in which masons and kikes duped the peasants to overthrow their benefactors. Revolutions such as mussolini's fascism and Hitler's national socialism didnt do what you said. They both held exactly to the ideology they promised, even strengthening it in power.

Yes we'll they did not enslave them but nevertheless people worked on land that they did not own. And to obtain land to work on you needed to fulfill requirements or you were essentially killed. This was essentially a eugenics program.

Now we have the opposite of an eugenics program. We will literally have 4 billion niggers by 2050.

I'm not blackpilled i just wanna say that some kind of genocide of unseen proportion will probably be necessary to re establish balance

That is demonstrably untrue.
Feudalism is probably the second least likely ideology to create a nation-state.
Under feudalism you had ridiculous empires like the Holy Roman Empire, with its German, French, Italian, Czech, and Slovene population. At one point France and England were one state. And the Poland Lithuanian Commonwealth ruled over Poles, Prussians, Lithuanians, Russians, Ukrainians, Livonians, and others.
States under Feudalism resemble the Austro-Hungarian Empire far more than the nation-state.
Race, culture, and nationalism are simply unimportant to aristocrats. What matters to them is money and personal family.


And it's not working.
That's because revolutions are not as simplistic as you seem to believe. People who revolt do so despite far louder voices in the media and government telling them not to. Thus we can reject the idea that that alone is the cause of revolt.
It's a lot more complex than that.

And do I REALLY need to expand on the social conditions in which revolts occur? I'll give you a hint:It's marked by depression suicide poverty and dissatisfaction (in general) and when the barrel is full it gets lit by a small group. And if you would please look out your window you would see we are exactly in this kind situation, nope nothing will happend, you won't do anything you nigger, mmmm sounds familiar.

Calm down.
America is ripe for revolution.

You are THIS blind.

...

This is a good thing. Their empire of lies will crumble because the idiots were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and aren't a shadow of the subversive bastards who clawed their way into wealth by their own merit (however morally repugnant and detestable such a journey must have been).

I'd rather the future Hitler faced retards like Jaden Smith, than a united and wily cabal of Kissingers.

What do you guys think about what Nick says here, basically that the collapse will never come and we would be delusional schizos to wait for it.

Personally I disagree, I think society is tottering on a fine point and could topple at any minute, it just takes the right circumstances. For example if oil prices rise too sharply or if their production is suddenly and drastically slowed that would mean the end of what we know. Same with food, water, power, meds, etc. Think about what would happen if the internet went out today, and Zig Forums disappeared and you were just staring at a black screen in your room, and you couldn't watch any youtube or play any games or read any news, you were just there in the quiet. Imagine the internet didn't come back for a few weeks or months, there would be radical changes. Interested on your thoughts.

Yes there would be indeed. This is why I have always said that it would be catastrophic for the elites to actually shut down 8/pol/
We're already radicalized to the point where if we don't get an outlet to peacefully whine about our oppression, some of us might take drastic actions that would topple the regime.

40.727363, -73.974384
40.757946, -73.946972
40.757987, -73.947238
40.756218, -73.938305
40.787731, -73.909261
40.787378, -73.912752
40.783734, -73.903551
40.781897, -73.906470
40.781583, -73.896981
40.860348, -73.920092
40.860969, -73.919575
40.957318, -73.856470
40.940047, -73.857276
41.077146, -73.831990
41.192766, -73.800226
40.705003, -73.984948
40.703832, -73.981964
40.659280, -73.993864
40.661939, -74.002759
40.699267, -73.813961

41.269838, -73.952437 **

41.043739, -73.965273
41.022975, -73.968059
40.981497, -73.959269

40.904958, -74.130254 G
40.839496, -74.024476 G
40.834223, -74.016512
40.804065, -74.025726
40.788772, -74.035878
40.778943, -74.042141
40.763463, -74.055130
40.749413, -74.072920
40.749270, -74.072761
40.746503, -74.069883
40.737921, -74.098530
40.737142, -74.096533 G

Caughtya. Have another trophy PDF. Catch it quick before it’s gone. I know the truths the moderators are too broken to tolerate.

Whoops, wrong PDF. Try this one. I know what Zig Forums censors.

Nonviolent activism is radically more effective than violent activism, but sociopaths find it confusing and dull, not to mention disappointingly unlikely to destabilize nations - a fact that matters when corrupted national governments are trying to injure each other’s prosperity. Let it not happen so! Power to the people!

Eurocucks need to start a violent revolution, kill all their "leaders" and instate a republic similar to the United States.
You fucks need to wake the fuck up.

Don’t emulate the USA, if you’re going to traumatize a generation with violence at least wreck your economy with socialism while you’re doing it. Occasionally rich people really are the problem. Don’t miss your opportunity.

Anyway, violent uprisings suck. Nonviolent protesters recruit society to conspire against leadership; violent protesters recruit society to conspire against violent protesters.

I disagree. Historically speaking, violent revolution is far more effective in causing meaningful change than peaceful protesting.
Examples of actual change caused by violent revolution;
The overthrow of over 500 years of Tsarist rule in Russia 1917.
The overthrow of more than 2000 years of imperial rule in China 1912
The end of more than 100 years of French colonial rule in Algiers and Tunesia 1962
The end of British rule in Ireland, Cyprus, and numerous other colonial outposts 20th century
The eviction of French colonial rule in Indochina 1954 and later against the American puppet regime.
The eviction of Soviet colonial rulers from Afghanistan 1989
The complete overthrow of the White Rhodesian government and its replacement by black majority rule 1979

I could go on and on and on if you like.
Violence works. Peaceful begging almost never works.

bbc.com/future/story/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

I’m not totally without a source here; it’s not just intuition.

Do you know what this site accuses the omnipotent Jews of doing?

Peaceful begging. Literally just peaceful begging.

When peaceful begging people convert enough of the population, organizing against them becomes practically impossible, and they either get their way or they bring down your government.

Yeltsin was corrupt and not entirely ethical, but even he brought down the Soviet Union on behalf of his ideology through peaceful begging.

Also, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan because 1989 sucked hardcore for them. The Afghans would’ve gotten rid of them faster with peaceful resistance. I suspect American-linked assets may have deliberately mistrained the Afghan rebels in order to make the process more intractable and thus expensive for the Soviets.

lol, that allegedly female con artist.
I've listened to her lectures and she is dead wrong. First of all, she ignores the numerous instances where violent resistance does affect political change. Fudging her data so that she can discount "partial success" in compelling regime change and using a really sleazy method of bumping up the numbers of peaceful successes.
Here's how the con works; She uses ALL of a small number of examples of successful, partially successful, and unsuccessful violent revolutionary organizations and peaceful ones. Except that she includes only massive peaceful protests that constitute 1-5% of the population vs small scale revolutionary movements that constitute only a few hundred individuals.
Well, no fucking shit if 2 million people gather in a square with defecting military personnel, you're likely going to get regime-change. But she ignores the many MILLIONS of smaller-scale peaceful protests that are easily broken up by regimes.
Comparing a 2 million person protest to a few hundred violent revolutionaries is completely ridiculous.
If you compare ALL peaceful begging to ALL violent revolutionary activity, peaceful protests come off as very meek and mild. A far greater proportion of peaceful activists fail compared to the percentage of violent activists.

That's preposterous. The reason that Afghanistan sucked for the USSR was because the Afghans were shooting them.
Had the Afghans sat on their hands and begged the USSR to leave their land, the Soviets would have laughed at them and they'd be there to this day.

Yes, the implosion of the USSR was relatively peaceful. However I can easily point to the situation in Chechnya as a counter example of a little violence gaining the country independence.
There are far more examples of violence affecting political change than peaceful protest.

Yes, there are examples of peaceful protests like in Armenia where MASSIVE numbers of people caused the collapse of a regime. That's because the withdrawl of the concent of the governed will collapse any regime. However to compare a mass movement with a relatively small ethno-nationalist separatist organization in say, Corsica is dishonest. A better comparison would be the Serbs of Herzgovenia who violently seceded from Bosnia.
She would not only ignore that but if one were to force her to consider this example, she'd say "Oh but they eventually failed"
But that's not applicable! They succeeded through force and that's what you need to take into consideration in the data. I could just as easily say "Alright and your peaceful Armenian example failed too because one corrupt regime was just replaced by another"
But that is as dishonest as she is being.
Compare and contrast peaceful movements with violent movements.

Still, I believe that we should be having this debate. It's healthy.
Let's compare and contrast our own data and come up with a clearer picture of whether peaceful protests work or do not work more often than violent revolution.

Oh and btw, Erica Chenoweth would NOT include something like the failed Charolettesville rally as an example of a failure of peaceful protest. She is that dishonest and slimy.

Attached: Erica Chenoweth.jpg (2625x3400, 280.09K)

Let's compare likes with likes.
First up for discussion are political revolutions that one could term "complete political revolution"
This means replacing an entire System with a different system.

Examples are the aforementioned Russian and Chinese revolutions. I'd disqualify anything that happened before 1900 so that disqualifies some of my own examples like the French revolution. But I feel that this is fair.
Examples of (arguable) peaceful CPRs would be Mussolini's seizure of power in Italy and Gandhi's peaceful liberation of India.

Do you agree that this is a fair comparison?

Dude. Big protests never happen in a vacuum. The small scale protests build. The violent ones don’t. People LIKE when governments crack down on violent organizations.

You’re protesting sleaze, but you also lied. A few hundred violent protesters is called a Chicago street gang. You need an army fifty thousand strong to take down a country. If you aren’t seriously depleting the fit young man population - which causes huge economic disruption itself HINT HINT - you don’t have enough manpower to matter. What you can do with that many violent men you can also do with that many peaceful men.

And it’s still pathetic that the fleshbots who moderate this place tried censorship before disputation.

Complete revolutions are shitshows. They’re a failure case. I’m a sortition advocate and even I don’t want a complete revolution; I want to replace one bicameral house, or make the system tricameral.

I didn't yawn, but my soul did.

First of all, you're a faggot. However your faggotry is not in itself a reason to reject your argument.
Secondly, your personal opinions are irrelevant to the data. Regardless of your desire for a CPR, they are a variety of political revolution that should be considered and compared.


Neither do violent campaigns.

That is simply false. Demonstrably false.

I see you've listened to Chenoweth's lectures as well. She is making broad and often incorrect generalities.

Exactly.
This is why violent protest is superior to peaceful protest.
2 million armed protesters can accomplish far more sweeping change than 2 million unarmed protesters.

Believe it or not, I'm among the closest people you'll ever find on this board to your friend.
I actually believe that this discussion should happen. I want there to be a discussion on whether violent revolution works or not because too many people take the edgy view without even thinking about it much and I hate that.

Look, how about we hammer out some comparative data analysis here and you can make a thread later proposing your theory that peaceful political protest has a higher rate of success than violent protest.
Just don't use Erica fucking Chenoweth as a source. She's a hack. Most anons are two didget IQ morons who have never heard of her but anyone who has and done their research knows that she is a hack.
idk what her problem is but I sincerely doubt she is being honest about her skepticism. She clearly is misrepresenting data to promote an agenda.

calm the fuck down faggot. civilization will reboot as it has before after complete collapse. ride the tiger

It's going to happen, but it could happen next week or it could happen in fifty years.

Have you ever noticed that when a fly lands and rubs its …. insect appendages together, it looks exactly like……….. … . ……………. ……b…..s…b…b.b..s….b….w….b.b..b..s.s.bs.b.

Exactly based poster, this is what I wanted to point towards, we will either see a complete collapse of the system followed by ultra violence and genocide, or the dystopian high tech AI + masses of low IQ mongrilosed brown people future.

In any case, the road ahead will be interesting.

Brother, I…..

...

"Non violent activism" tends to involve blackmailing politicians with rent boys. At least when Soros was funding it.

There are seven ICANN keyholders.

It was 12 people when I first heard if it. And those same people that were talking about that 15 years ago went on to help Soros get Obama into office.

#MAGAwithDACA

Kinshasha is going to be a city of 86 million by 2050


*shudder*

National Socialism is a form of socialism
since socialism tends towards dysgenics is national socialism dysgenic?

should sortition impose a competence filter?

Blockchain empowered tribalism. Organize socialist communities of 120 people. Then network and trade over blockchain. Only decentralized methods with full transparency and accountability can break the cycle.