[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1678650145933.jpg ( 144 KB , 1148x1630 , boringdystopia-11p4vhm.jpg )

 No.467069[View All]

Realistically how do you reconcile lack of gun control in the school shooter era?
These kind of incidents can't go one forever without some kind of push back. Can gun rights preserved without having to live with school shootings?
317 posts and 30 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.468099

>>468098

And there were loads of guys who worked retail and committed mass shootings. Whatever you're trying to say here, it's fucking gay. The guns stay.
>>

 No.468118

>>468052
>Banning the gun specifically designed to slaughter civilians is a CIA plot guies!
Cry moar ya dumbass gun but.
>>

 No.468120

>>468095
>but the one time a transman
hey, watch yourself man thing

it's called trans-hooman
>>

 No.468121

>>468099
Agree. if it's a mutually exclusive choice between letting a few mentally ill troons have guns or disarming everyone, then I'd choose letting the troons have guns.
>>468118
This isn't reddit. You will get no upvoots for your milquetoast MSNBC fed opinions here
>>

 No.468122

>>468118
I have to side with >>468121
That type of gun-debate, is a ruse.
If you start talking about the nature of tools, you got got, tools are inert objects.

The real debate is about who's allowed to wield tools, and for what purpose.

If only the organized proletariat wields weapons to enforce it's political and economic interests, it's very easy to implement socialism. And it's easy to justify this politically because the proletarian interest is very nearly identical to democracy, because the proletariat encompasses most people.

The capitalist ruling class of course they want that no weapons should be wielded unless it's for the enforcement of their interests. And it's very difficult to justify this politically because that is indistinguishable from tyranny. For that reason they can't be open about their intentions, they try to use manipulation, deception and diversion of attention, as means to gain consent for shifting fire-power towards the enforcement of their interests.

So there is no reason to accept any of their premises in this debate.

The maximalist goal for Socialists is a highly organized proletariat that is heavily armed, well trained and unopposed by any other force. We want any and all weapons at the disposal of enforcing the interests of the proletariat and that includes nukes and future scifi weapons. And we would like the Bourgeoisie to be disarmed.

Of course maximalist goals aren't always realistic, so we support the political positions that are the closest and most compatible.

Of course this shouldn't be interpreted as giving individual people nukes. Nor does it mean that immature children should have guns, or mentally unstable people would be allowed to pilot a helicopter gunship. Of course as with any tool-use sanity checks apply, which means training and discipline is mandatory. Neither the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat seeks to arm people that are ill suited for wielding weapons. Nobody is actually arguing for shooting up schools or other public venues, that's just an imaginary opponent for a political narrative.

Of course there is the question of interpersonal conflicts that aren't political, if many people are armed, no amount of discipline, training and judiciousness with granting the possession of weapons, will fix this. But the same can also be said for the attempt of universally disarming the population. The police isn't superhuman that will never shoot in error, anybody looking at police violence statistics (especially in the US) can come to that conclusion. Banning the possession of weapons also doesn't mean that people will comply with it. So if you seek to further reduce the number of gunshot victims with realism in mind, the conclusion must be that because firearms exist it's time to push for the development of every-day wearable clothing that can stop at least low caliber bullets.

Something that already exists is bullet-proof backpacks for kids that have an armor plate. Before you roll your eyes at this being a sign of dystopia, there is literally no reason why everyday objects like this shouldn't double as a protective measure. Armor plates that can stop up to medium powered rifle ammo, can be made from relatively light weight and affordable materials, that would hardly compromise the functionality of a backpack. Making people less vulnerable must also be considered as an effective measure to reduce violence.
>>

 No.468126

>>468121
>Muh Redditor
t. childless NEET
>>

 No.468127

>>468121
>This isn't reddit. You will get no upvoots for your milquetoast MSNBC fed opinions here
>No way could anyone be genuinely concerned about little kids getting ventilated every month while learning their ABCs. It's all virtue signaling.
You'll understand if you ever have kids, or sex.
>>

 No.468138

>>468127
>Backwards rationalize spasming your micropenis into some ungrateful (likely fat and betattooed) roastie because pulling out is too hard when you're thirsty
>double down on shit lib takes
You're practically a woman
>>

 No.468141

>>468138
>Kids getting killed every month is just a liberal wedge issue because uh my wife is ugly…I think.
Calm down ma'am, you're hysterical.
>>

 No.468143

>>468141
Are you still wearing a mask too?
>>

 No.468145

Children and teens are more likely to die by guns than anything else
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/health/us-children-gun-deaths-dg/index.html
>>

 No.468150

>cnn
fuck off with your muh children shit, Caren

funny how just as Uncle Same prepares for war, you want to take our guns away
>>

 No.468162

File: 1680171704029.mp4 ( 855.24 KB , 640x360 , sYfKX_auhOZboDgC.mp4 )

>>

 No.468184

>>468150
>Noooooo it's not true, everything is a psyop.
>>

 No.468189

>>467069
Firearms have been widely owned in the US for centuries.
Semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines have been owned in the US for over a century.
Semi-automatic shotguns have been owned in the US for over a century.
Semi-automatic pistols have been owned in the US for over a century.
For most of the US's history it was easier to get a gun than it is today. There were less identity checks and less scrutiny.
School shootings in the form of spree killings, got their start in the 90s and escalated in the 2000s.

Clearly firearms ownership and spree killings are not connected inherently. And if anything there is a large lack of association.
Firearms are just a means by which disaffected psychos express their insanity. The drive that turns normal crackpots and sociopaths into resentful spree killers is the issue that needs to be tracked down. Why now? Why today? What has changed to make this happen? Why wasn't this happening before? What were we doing right before that we aren't today?
Those are the questions to answer, not "how do we take away guns?". Otherwise the same madness will still be in place, and will express itself through anti-social violence in other ways.
>>

 No.468190

>>467119
Manifest destiny would have still happened.
Canadians and Australians used their standard police forces and militias to wipe out or crush the Natives first before sending in settlers. The US just preferred to leave that to the settlers unless necessary.
>>

 No.468513

File: 1681109439943-0.jpg ( 280.17 KB , 1080x1289 , IMG_20230407_171017.jpg )

File: 1681109439943-1.jpg ( 364.39 KB , 1080x1271 , IMG_20230407_171143.jpg )

>>

 No.468522

>>468189
>Firearms have been widely owned in the US for centuries.
Yes, because the US is a settler colonialist nation. That's why gun rights aren't anywhere near as strong inside European colonial nations, where they exist at all.
>>

 No.468526

>>468522
That isn't relevant to my post.
It doesn't matter 'why' the US had tons of firearms in it, it only matters that it did without significant numbers of spree killings.
So what changed to trigger them?
>>

 No.468527

>>468522
>Give up your guns because of settler colonialism
Glow harder
>>

 No.468547

>>468527
>Let kids get slaughtered so porky can have right wing death squads.
t. capitalist stooge
>>

 No.468548

>>468547
<the left is so impotent and full of pussies that they refuse to arm themselves in current year
ebin post comrade
>>

 No.468551

>>468547
capitalists would have their death squads irrespective if the guns are banned or not

ability to own guns actually makes death squads much less effective
one of the best things about burgerland
>>

 No.468552

>>467561
You can reproduce the machine code of a computer program for basically nothing. It's not like the computer itself is sweating at the laborious process of copying a file. It's what the computer is designed to do.

You're an idiot who knows nothing about a computer, a commodity, economics, or frankly anything that concerns reality. You want to reify "information" as some sort of substance in of itself, which is not what information is.

t. compsci nerd from a family of compsci nerds who is aware of information theory and cybernetics. They don't teach CS properly, intentionally because managers don't want computer programmers smart enough to actually upset the beast, and anyone who is independently capable is either co-opted or mentally destroyed by ideology and the system.
>>

 No.468553

I'm sad to see this thread took a dive into greater retardation, almost entirely because of essentialist ideology and confusion about basic facts and reality. None of you know anything about anything or why people would want a gun in the first place. If you can't answer in the context of a materialist political concept why someone should have a gun, you shouldn't have a gun and wouldn't know where to point it if you wanted to "fight tyrants". Marx in writing about gun control and the citizens' militia assumes you're capable enough to possess political sense and think about what you're going to do with a gun. He isn't advocating a "me wantee" theory of gun rights, or really giving a shit about any legal right saying your gun is kosher. The workers at the time often had no gun rights, because they had no substantial defense of their rights at all. Any right they had to their weapons was provisional, but at the time, states were limited in their ability to confiscate guns en masse. The idea that cities could be turned into antiseptic violence-free zones like that future in Demolition Man was fantastical, not that there weren't efforts of states to try that. To confiscate guns from nominally free men who have largely avoided violence in their lives would be both a waste of time for the state and a remarkable tyranny, and the state has always had a priority list of who they wish to disarm. The only reason the present gun control is pushed is a prelude to confiscation of everything else the middle class owns, and it has less to do with the gun itself than the right to self-defense that is implied. That's not a legal right - by liberal theory, you have no right to defend yourself whatsoever - but it is something so ancient and essential to the concept of a democratic society that telling someone "you are not allowed to fight back and must endure a lifetime of abuse and humiliation" would be seen as a barbaric outrage. It took generations of social engineering to convince people that anything we do in education and socialization is normal. Someone 200 yaers ago would look at what we do today and say that shit is more fucked up than Jim Crow (and they were perfectly aware that things like that are what you do to slave populations, that are unfit for any free society). Seeing as Jim Crow is the model a lot of these people have for conditioning slaves, consciously followed in every humiliation the school imposes on students, it isn't surprising. It's also not surprising that today's gun control debate comes from a history of confiscating guns from the "bad people", particularly black radicals who were an explicit target of Nixon. They saw a "black messiah" as the most likely threat to social order in that time, and they know their history and why they would come to that conclusion, and this was not simply about race as an essence or a historical fact, but a proxy for the underclass and what motivated the vanguard of racism in the late 20th century. Racism could no longer present an argument of genuine "white supremacy" or identity as something to protect, because the ruling ideas were that all Americans and the whole world would be dispossessed. The new racism is nothing more than total self-abasement and cuckoldry, and the most degenerate specimens of the white race are little better than those they declared to be living abortions, just smart enough to make the rest of us suffer and indulge in their typical faggotry.
>>

 No.468554

>>468553
>you shouldn't have a gun
nah, fuck off back to canada, cuck

>and wouldn't know where to point it if you wanted to "fight tyrants"

nah, I would point it at you and pull the trigger, because you're a wannabe tyrant who wants to take guns away
>>

 No.468562

>>467556
>all human activity is productive that is paid money for
So the arbitrary whims of the people who have the most money decide what's un/productive ?
I think not.

Cockshott's version makes more sense
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=IVDkFMGxbX8
>>

 No.468566

>>468554
I don't care about the political "debate" in this country. That you're accepting this as the spectrum of permissible ideas is a sign that you wouldn't be able to use a gun if you had fighter jets and nukes backing you up. It's the thinking of people who are trained to be impotent.

You'll all so ridiculously fucked that it's sad to watch. This gong show of a country is going to hell and the world will not be a livable place, unless you like slavery and sadism.
>>

 No.468590

>>467136
why are you defending our hitlerite establishment abrogating our constitutional rights? Stalin said that Communists should take up and defend typically bourgeois rights because the bourgeois no longer has any interest in them - he was right. The first and second amendments are excellent weapons for Communists.

>>467134
>settler colonialism is continual process that provides original capital for capitalism.

you are deranged. Absolute nonsense, nobody is being colonized in the USA right now.
>>

 No.468610

>>468590
>why are you defending our hitlerite establishment abrogating our constitutional rights? Stalin said that Communists should take up and defend typically bourgeois rights because the bourgeois no longer has any interest in them - he was right.
Maybe the way to go about raising this issue is to suggest bourgeois specific gun bans combined with mandatory gun ownership for the proletariat. It's sort of a troll-move because it would be in the material interests of small arms manufacturers to support this, and the political movement that wants to ban guns could be painted as opposing gun bans for the ruling class.

>nobody is being colonized in the USA right now.

I think you are mostly correct about this, but the Island of Hawaii could technically bee seen as a US colony.
>>

 No.468619

>>468566
>muh nukes means you don't need guns stupid prole
nah, fuck off
why can't you win in ukraine with your nukes retard? because nukes is the weapon of last resort

against death squads and wannabe tyrants my shotgun is enough
>>

 No.468620

>>468619
no anon clearly if there's ever an armed workers insurgency the government will just nuke their own cities
its not even a weapon of last resort in this scenario
the ruling class would rather flee and let the revolutionaries win, and hope they fail so they can return, than fucking nuke their own cities
theres no fucking way even the most psycopathic bateman tier booj can justify that shit in the history books
>>

 No.468625

>>468620
>no anon clearly if there's ever an armed workers insurgency the government will just nuke their own cities
Armed workers can't easily be rounded up by fascist storm troopers and marched into a concentration camp, that's the point of an armed proletariat.

I doubt that the bourgeoisie can really separate their wealth and power from civilizational structures like cities. But you are correct that a competent revolution has to secure the nukes. Maybe less so because of a crazy bourgeoisie trying to commit nuclear suicide, but rather because somebody might try to sell nukes on the black market during political ruptures. There's a lot of common ground across the ideological spectrum where everybody agrees to avoid creating a bunch of warlords with a nuke. So securing the nukes is probably less difficult than you think.
>>

 No.468630

>>468610
>Maybe the way to go about raising this issue is to suggest bourgeois specific gun bans combined with mandatory gun ownership for the proletariat. It's sort of a troll-move because it would be in the material interests of small arms manufacturers to support this, and the political movement that wants to ban guns could be painted as opposing gun bans for the ruling class.

unrealistic and there are way more proles than bourgeois, you may as well just make gun ownership mandatory for everyone.

>the Island of Hawaii could technically bee seen as a US colony.

In what way is colonialism actively occurring there?
>>

 No.468634

>>468630
>unrealistic and there are way more proles than bourgeois, you may as well just make gun ownership mandatory for everyone.
you didn't get it, that was sort of the point.

>In what way is colonialism actively occurring there?

I haven't been paying enough attention to give you details but not that long ago there was a bit of a political rupture and the US was at some point considering about sending in the military to deal with the "uppity locals". And that was reminiscent of colonial times.
>>

 No.468635

>>468634
>I haven't been paying enough attention to give you details but not that long ago there was a bit of a political rupture and the US was at some point considering about sending in the military to deal with the "uppity locals". And that was reminiscent of colonial times.
Just accept my bombastic edgy takes, ok!
>>

 No.468640

File: 1681401118086.png ( 241.76 KB , 525x546 , 1676575427657401.png )

My fucking state just banned assault weapons. Banning assault rifles is window dressing for shit caused by alienation of capitalism. To answer, op, no it really isn't. Obviously people shouldn't be able to own private bazookas, but, I think this fear of assault weapons is irrational. Soon they will ban our handguns too.
>>

 No.468642

>>468640
Oh, I thought you wanted to beat the right wing fashists. I guess you were a crypto-chud all along
>>

 No.468643

>>468640
A bazooka is a recoilless large-ish caliber man-portable cannon. It used to be an infantry based anti-material weapon. It has been depreciated by shouldered rocket-launchers. It's only useful for attacking tanks and helicopters, or other stuff that has a lot of armor. It's very difficult to aim it at anything smaller than vehicles. So shooting people with it is like really hard, and you'd likely miss. You also can't use it to destroy buildings because it's primarily designed to make holes in thick armor, and buildings don't collapse if there's a little hole in the wall. So the potential for abuse is somewhat limited. The reason for banning public ownership might be more along the lines that the ammo goes bad relatively quickly and if people tried to use one of those after it rotted in their basement for 20 years, they would likely blow them selves up with it.

Many socialists consider an armed proletariat as a people's army to be the optimal military strategy. That way you only need a relatively small professional military that operates the complex high tech weapons. The risk of creating a politically influential military industrial complex like in the US would also be lower. The people's army would also be doing their own gunsmithing. This people's army would likely mostly use handguns, rifles, shotguns and hand-grenades, but not assault weapons. Because the purpose of the people's army is not open-combat. It's supposed to be a vast low intensity military force that goes into hiding once a invasion from capitalist powers happens. It will then lurk in the shadows and take potshots at invading forces to make it excruciatingly difficult to operate, while the professional wing of the military focuses on deep strikes to take out the war-profiteering capitalist ruling class who ordered the invasion.

The thinking here is that the large proletarian mass that takes potshots from all directions will scare away the officers of the invading military. There wouldn't be a clear front where they can order the grunts towards hurling them selves into the embrace of death, wile they them selves stay tucked away where it's safe. And that means the invading soldiers would be without overseers and can desert or switch sides more easily.

Once the faction of the ruling class that ordered the invasion of the socialist country is taken out by deep strikes, the capitalists that are next in line for power kinda ow the socialist country for clearing out their rivals, and will be more likely to negotiate a peace. This will create political chaos for a short while, and the attacking military force will get disoriented by conflicting orders from a fracturing political structure. That will represent an opportunity to absorb a chunk of them, specifically the proletarian part that only joined the military via financial pressure, which would reduce the post-war labor force of the attacking capitalist power. The foreign proletariat within the grasp of the attacking capitalist power would gain more political bargaining power which also means politics would shift more towards peace.
>>

 No.468650

>>468643
ignoring the fact that the mere political pressure of an already armed proletariat might be more effective than their use of said arms in combat
everything you're saying might be right but there is still no justification for banning guns beyond liberal bullshit and leftoid defeatism
as anons have pointed out numerous times in the thread widespread mass killings are a relatively recent phenomenon and gun ownership has little to do with it
the only counter ive seen so far is some variation of "who cares, you dont need your guns chud" to "yeah but its the best we can do lol"
it constantly evades the real cause of the problem and ultimately reeks of the same counterproductive attitude of collaboration with bourgeois parties that western leftists have shackled themselves to for decades now
>>

 No.468654

>>468650
>ignoring the fact that the mere political pressure of an already armed proletariat might be more effective than their use of said arms in combat
everything you're saying might be right but there is still no justification for banning guns beyond liberal bullshit and leftoid defeatism

I agree about your point regarding deterrence.

I think that if you want democratized firepower, you also need democratized ammo production, and assault-rifles use too much ammo, it really doesn't scale up. Consider a people's army is about 30-60% of the population under arms. Training and firearm proficiency maintenance over a lifetime for assault-rifles takes about 50k rounds per person. And you need to have the capacity to surge supply to 500 rounds per month for every person, for it to count towards credible deterrence. For a moderately large country of 100mil population with 30% to 60% under arms you need to produce 1.5 to 3 trillion bullets for their training roughly every 50 years. The logistics trail appears un-realistic, so assault rifles aren't interesting. Let me remind you that the production needs to be done via a large number of local workshops to count as fully democratized, to the point where it becomes impractical to undo democratic access to firearms. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns require about 25x times less ammo which makes it just about doable.

I could see the point to oppose assault-rifle bans in order to avoid a legal precedent, but not in order to actually arm people with those. Assault rifles come with advanced tactics, and most people will not be willing to learn that. So it's kinda pointless even if you could stem the logistics.

My motivation is the political utility. I see a population that is armed as a population that is harder to bully. The other benefit that i see is equalization of the capacity for violence in the personal space. And the cost benefit ratio doesn't favor assault rifles for either.
>>

 No.468684

>>468620
You still think the rulers are on the defensive. This is the pretense states always claim - that their position is natural and everyone else is inherently aggressing against them. The state and those who rule are always on the offensive, and this is basic fucking politics. It is understood to anyone who knows politics that the state has a legal monopoly on violent force, which it uses very often towards the aims it values. The state's aggression, and the aggression of those who are beholden to the state and favor the state, is many orders of magnitude greater than the violence against the state.

Yes, they would nuke the cities, and the only reason to build nuclear weapons is to make this threat to the people. Nuclear weapons in a conventional war are not terribly effective, because any competent commander will be hesitant to mass a lot of force within the blast radius. A well trained army will withstand a nuclear war. Pacifist civilians who are lied to constantly will not.
More than that though, nuclear weapons are the ultimate threat against seizing a city, or wiping out a population selected to die. Beyond that, there is likely a situation where the nukes will be launched offensively, in order to finish depopulation and rebuild the cities as the rulers wanted them to be - as places without us. The rulers moved everything they cared about underground, to remote bunkers, and anyone of value will not be destroyed. The cities become death traps to cage the serfs, and when it's time to kill them, you just put barriers in front of every exit. There is some sick humor here - the French Revolution involved workers and lumpens fighting on street barricades, and the endgame of mass politics is that the same barricades are placed in front of those fleeing for their life. There will be nowhere to hide, and the rulers want it that way. There comes a point where the rulers extracted enough torture from the superfluous lumpen population, and have sorted humanity. They protect the ones they want to keep, kill off most of the rest in cities, and mop up the depopulated countryside. It's very easy and would be the obvious way to end the siege against humanity - just as the inventors of nuclear weapons intended. The victorious faction will be the very scientists who jumped up and down like maniacs once their "wonder weapon" was realized. They knew what side of the war they're on to a man and woman.

It's so cute that you think only about "the narrative". The history books would only be read by those who won. The losers would all be dead or enslaved, and the terms of slavery would likely forbid them from reading history books. Of course, you yourself probably haven't read a real history book that isn't ancient. There's a history of the more occulted and secret world where humanity goes on, and bits of that world come out, but people like you are the worst sort who act as if the narratives made by trained liars are the truth. It's all so Satanic.
>>

 No.468685

I'm not saying resistance to this is impossible, just that some people refuse to acknowledge basic realities about the intent of nuclear weapon doctrine. In the 1950s, the atomic bomb was just another weapon - a bigger bomb than the conventional bombs that levelled cities, but a weapon with particular uses. The Chinese of the 1950s were ready to fight a war without nukes and didn't act like Hitlerian pussies who pray for their "wonder weapons". Chinese doctrine was set up with the expectation that they would need to survive a nuclear attack and make occupation of the country an impossibility. They built god-knows how many underground tunnels in preparation for this, and a plan to fight an insurgency. That was one of the only things that stopped the China Lobby from trying to reconquer the place outright, and the smarter heads in American command saw that.
>>

 No.468686

I believe resistance is actually very likely, but it remains to be seen if resistance can actually win until all cards are out. That's one reason for engineering a civil war - have two factions both directed at groups who are first on the "selected to die" list, who then reconcile once they get enough of their targets dead. What would determine the full outcome of that depends on whether anything independent of the two planned factions can exist, and the nature of those who have no stake whatsoever in this faggotry the bastards have engineered. If they are ideological retards who refuse to engage with basic shit, they're a liability to any resistance and will fold to the liberals, or they become full on death-cultists which is what Infrared-Maupin types are becoming.

It really comes down to how willing people are to enforce the purge mechanisms, and the ability of the purged to make this as expensive as possible. The advantage the people hold is that we're used to surviving on next to nothing as far as quality of life. Most of our lives are spent fending off the struggle-struggle-struggle that the institutions put us through, and the more struggle that an active war would entail. If there is this war and purge situation, the people will have no loyalty to the peacetime institutions. It's already the case that no one trusts the hospitals if they have any sense, and they're seeing the institutions transform into things which overtly cast them out. I am telling everyone selected to die right now that they need to escape the institutions and never see such things as anything but an enemy. There may be an attempt to construct new institutions, but these will all be fake and set up with clear distinction between those selected to live and those selected to die.
>>

 No.468687

The win condition for the resistance is not some victory where they seize the state, but surviving the onslaught with any remnant of independence intact. The purges can only last so long before they are exhausted of fuel and morale. The True Believers are full eugenic creed with a billion year contract, blooded and never changing, but there are only so many True Believers. A lot of people are going to see that this purge (a) will eventually come for them, because the purgers only want True Believers to live, and (b) is absurdly expensive, counterproductive, stupid, and doesn't produce anything good, and (c) would lose its power if the True Believers are the only ones willing to fight. The way around (c) has been to push as many mind controlled and insane people in the way, and that's something they've accomplished with the anarchoid left and the more faggy elements of the right. There are only so many such people though, and I don't see the effectivity of the scumbag contingent being what they hoped it would be. There is too much residual decency to keep the game going without money and lots of threats, and too many people already have seen that if they withdraw their support or halfass the purging, the purge and the war stops short of full victory. Some of the damned will live, and that is as much of a win as we can get.
>>

 No.468688

Bear in mind that if it comes to a civil war, that will be the end of any reconciliation between those selected to live and those selected to die. Those who survive the war on the latter side will never, ever trust the institutions, "revolutionary" or otherwise. They have no reason to ever believe any government, and no government will or can give assurances to restore any trust in institutions. The survivors of the damned will only be able to form their own institutions, if they are allowed, and they will continue to suffer under the pressure of the ruling institutions which are antagonistic towards them. Very likely the terms of "keeping the peace" will be a total segregation of those selected to die, and many selected to die becoming the reserve army of slavery. With the alternative being maximal torture and death in absolute terror, there is only slavery or suicide. Enough stubbornness will prevent suicide, and the maximal torture thing will be difficult without resuming the purge that was somehow miraculously defeated. So that will mean those who were truly defeated - us of the damned - will be allowed to live on the most meager terms possible. That is what we will be reduced to - arguing just how bad the coming slavery will be. There will be false promises of freedom and manumission, but that has always been a lie and will be doubly so after the struggle. They were never going to let us in their society.
>>

 No.468709

Why didn't the Albanians have this many mass shootings?
>>

 No.468715

File: 1681674371776.jpg ( 247.64 KB , 1080x1237 , IMG_20230417_023028.jpg )

>>

 No.468720

File: 1681695128353.jpg ( 166.46 KB , 1170x1113 , 20230413_163143.jpg )

>>

 No.468728

>>468715
The Big Retard is right for once.

Unique IPs: 31

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome