/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Politically Incorrect

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 6500


Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 10


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

(135.91 KB 1080x1928 Black_Sun.jpg)
Acceleration within the Government System Anonymous 12/20/2019 (Fri) 20:17:27 No. 15857
Greetings everybody. I have had this on my mind for a period of time and would like to discuss the possibility and success rate as well as the effectiveness and duration to achieve the end goal [control and influence over laws to some extend] of government infiltration.
What I mean by this is us, meaning people willing and motivated enough to protect our people and act against invaders, seeking to get involved in our legal systems with the focus on accessing influential positions in:
>law [judge, lawyer]
My questions and points of discussions would include the possibility of a live-action-roleplay as leftist; purpose would be to infiltrate strong leftist parties and weaken them from within [leaking information that could cause them problems of any type, making voters leave due to one's own radical views once in a position of power]. As lawyer/judge, the obvious purpose would be to keep pressure on invaders through higher imprisonment rates - the judge's freedom to sentence in his own point of view may vary from country to country. As policeman, the goal is to, obviously, put pressure on invaders due to higher rates of arrests.
We all want to act. Or at least many want to, but not everyone is willing to commit criminal acts to achieve their goals - this thread serves as a discussion point for everyone who doesn't want to risk freedom and life but still wants to act. By gaining influence over our countries, we shall retake them.
What are your opinions on any and all of my points?
Of course - but war isn't won with numbers only, we have to be smart, if we can make it easier to retake our countries, why not do so? If we have people on the street as well as in charge over laws and the legal system as a whole, it can only be beneficial. At some point, we might have to force people to find the light, to force them toward a better future and loyalty might be one of the only values we have to/can rely on. Do not misunderstand my words; I can and will put all of my energy and resources into defending my people, I shall support them in every way and put boots on the ground. But I also want to keep losses and casualties at a minimum, because we will have to decide, perhaps within our lifetime, what to do, when to act and how to organize. Victory has to be achieved, and the most effective way will be to have people on all sides. Once the pressure builds, I want to win the battle, defeat is not an option and by controlling laws and thus the country's safety, it will be easier. But I would like to know how realistic or helpful this direction of energy would be for our cause.
>I would like to know how realistic or helpful this direction of energy would be
I've been thinking about this too.
The Overton window has been moved our way in the last 5 years, it's true.
A path like the one you sketched needs several decades to be achieved, also because the people holding power today will never easily give it up (in fact we are witnessing them clamping down on their opponents more and more as days go by).
The problem is: where are we going to be as a race two or three decades from now? Are we going to be too few in numbers, with boomers dying out and our horribly low birthrates?
Sorry but with these prospects a path via political/democratic/academia means is not realistic, or at least it will remain ineffective because while engaging in this, the invaders will have replaced us pretty much everywhere and the "democratic" system will have already assimilated them and put them in every place that once belonged to our people, including the key positions in government and academia, not to speak of the armed forces.
>while engaging in this, the invaders will have replaced us pretty much everywhere and the "democratic" system will have already assimilated them
I tend to disagree, based on my country's political direction and I shall explain shortly. What I would like to address first is the purpose of securing a position of power which could be reached in many ways and yes, it would take time but contrary to a popular believe among fellow accelerationists, an overthrow of the government wouldn't be necessary if the best case scenario is achieved:
>retaking our right-wing as well as left-wing parties
>political influence through redefining of laws and social structures to acquire control within the state
>removal of laws unfit for our cause [immigration laws in particular but also welfare given to invaders as well as linguistic standards for them, financial support for our people's families to make children more affordable]
>proposal of laws that benefit our cause [faster deportation of invaders, prohibited financial support for their families outside the country, restrictions in expression of religion]
>financial support and formations of strong connections between countries that share the same nationalistic, economic and ethical values; forming trade deals to make both sides less dependant [financially and politically] on organisations such as NATO or the EU in general
This is only wishful thinking, but it is a possibility, in theory. However, as you mentioned, the invaders will and are replacing us as we write. To illustrate this: nearly 21% of members of the political left wing party have an invader's background, whereas less than 1% of the same foreign ethnicity are present in the right or centre-right parties. This, while certainly worrying, will benefit us as people will be forced to vote based on ethnic values at some point because only the most, dare I say, retarded laws and comments only ever come from the social parties. An example:
>Rendi-Wagner, leader of the SPÖ [Austrian social party] called the law introduced under the FPÖ [Austrian freedom party] that required immigrants to speak proper german a 'despicable violation of human rights and values' before removing the law after the coalition of the centre-right and right party broke
This, in itself, has caused many left-wing voters to reconsider their voting choices. Political control is possible and seems to be beneficial when it comes to forming relationships with other nationalist countries.
>move as one - full support for brother nations
>retarded laws and comments only ever come from the social parties
Reagan was one of the biggest Presidents on expanding immigration and amnesty. George W. Bush too. Don't act like the Republicans don't pass just as many shitty laws.
You know that you live in the Twilight Zone when the US is a bankrupt warmongering police state and Americans look you in the eye and say that the USA is a peaceful and free country with a balanced budget.
I'm less concerned with the USA than I am with my own country. They, while certainly not in the best political position, aren't my top concern, anon. I know conservatives can be just as bad, but in general, they don't do as much harm to my people as the tolerant, diversified left. Again, speaking of recent [2000-2019] policies within the EU.
What political party that calls for mass repatriations did you have in mind?
It entirely depends on the country. Obviously, there aren't universal parties for the entire European Union and those elected into the European parliament by each country will make the choices so I can only talk about my own country as I am best informed about it and may only briefly get into others such as France, Germany or Hungary but I would like to avoid it as I'm most likely going to make mistakes there. But generally speaking, parties that call for what you mentioned aren't in a position of power or, like in my country, do not exist. So the must be funded. If even one country within the EU has a strong, influential ethno-nationalist government, other countries will evidently follow up on it if they see a financial benefit for themselves in mass repatriation; however, success rests on individual determinants - I, for one, will have to form connections with the IB organisation and discuss the possibility with them becoming a party with their leader, who, luckily, is approachable. If organisations, who are generally closer to the people can cooperate with political parties, exchange ideas and discuss laws we can reach our goals more efficiently. What is your opinion on this?
Found such a party, then seek support for it. You're putting the cart before the horse. "Not your personal army" and so on.
That is my entire point. I just wanted to hear people's opinions on my suggestion and how helpful it would be. I do not look for others online to do my job and look for real life connections, it is simply a discussion point because I'm neither a politician nor a lawyer so gathering other people's points of view is helpful.
When in history has a pacifist party in a Democracy led to mass repatriations?
Who the fuck was talking about a pacifist party?
sage for low effort
Maybe the point of nanny state laws, regulations, security cameras, license plate readers, checkpoints, redlight cameras, speed cameras, FBI facial and voice recognition, curfews, gun bans, searches without warrants, mandatory minimums, DNA databases, CISPA, SOPA, NDAA, IMBRA, private prison quotas, no knock raids, take down notices, no fly lists, terror watch lists, Constitution free zones, stop and frisk, 3 strikes laws, kill switches, National Security Letters, kill lists, FBAR, FATCA, Operation Chokepoint, civil forfeiture, CIA torture, NDAA indefinite detention, secret FISA courts, FEMA camps, laws requiring passports for domestic travel, IRS laws denying passports for tax debts, gun and ammo stockpiles, laws outlawing protesting, police militarization, NSA wiretapping, the end to the right to silence, free speech bans, private prisons, FOSTA, TSA groping, and Jade Helm is not to keep you safe from niggers.

Maybe the real purpose of the police state is to protect the jews from the 99%.


no cookies?