/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

(304.31 KB 987x505 Ow707.jpg)
(924.39 KB 2425x1629 Ow7000.jpg)
How to radicalize yourself Anonymous 01/10/2020 (Fri) 15:43:32 No. 18333
I have been thinking about that a lot and the key to become a mass shooter is to completely give up your life in society. Society holds you down and wants you to submit and fit in and that is what makes you a slave! You have to be ready to give your life away for the things you believe in and that's what distinguishes heroes like Tarrant and Breivik from normal, civilized slaves. They were ready to sacrifice everything for the things they believed in. Hail victory!
>How to radicalize yourself
Just go on Plebbit for 5 seconds
All mass shooters originate from it
This is a secret dont tell 4cucks about it
but 4cucks are the plebbiters though their both the same
Watch Sargon of Akkad
(4.99 KB 250x132 gl.jpg)
>Propagandize yourself. Let others program you.
Why think for yourself, amirite?
This thread glows more than the exposed core of the Chernobyl reactor
If you want to become a mass shooter, you are not a Revolutionary, you are mentally ill scum.
>Today we can sum up the situation in this way: we add the destructive, corrosive strategy of political postmodernity (possessing the same authoritative, offensive dispositive) into the sphere of the political (which is Schmitt’s classical politics, including pre-modernity and modernity), and we receive politics in its widest meaning, in its absolute meaning. This is the Absolute Political (absolut Politische), in the boundaries of which we can place two basic anthropological models. It sounds natural: the first is ‘contemporary man’, constructed by the political, struggling against politics as such. He is like a dancer at a club. He has his blog, he watches TV, he pretends he votes for the opposition (that is, he latently identifies himself with the destructive, anti-state political trend, even if he lacks a well-thought-out, coherent politics). When confronting any integral political concept, he starts by saying ‘no’, his attitude toward it is very aggressive, and it creates a specifically-aimed influence. >The other figure is the political soldier (Das politische Soldat). ‘The political soldier’ is a different concept, developed in the 1930s, which is a personality, summing up what we have called the classical approach to das Politische, the classical approach to the political. Its definition is very picturesque: the political soldier differs from the common man by the fact that he kills and dies for politics. His killing and personal death become an existential element of the manifestation of the political, and thus, for him the political acquires an existential dimension. The politician, unlike the political soldier, deals with the political, but never kills or dies for it. When the politician confronts death and murder, he says, ‘No, I’d better rethink my convictions.’

>This is a wonderful romantic image, employed as a part of modernity and the Twentieth century, where we could see these splendid political soldiers. Nietzsche’s words illustrate their role in the history of the Twentieth century. Although wars in the Nineteenth century were fought for material goals, ‘[a] warlike age [is] approaching that will above all restore honour to bravery! For it shall pave the way for a still higher age and gather the strength that the latter will one day need — the age that will carry heroism into the search for knowledge and wage wars for the sake of thoughts and their consequences.’[257] When is this time? It was the Twentieth century. The entirety of the Twentieth century was filled with political soldiers killing each other for their beliefs. They killed and were killed. >Besides, every traditional society (for example that of Genghis Khan’s) was founded by political soldiers. The Russian Empire was also built by political soldiers. Modernity was very sensitive to this figure. They say the political soldier fights only for elevated and spiritual ideas. >But that is not the case. Even a liberal can become a political soldier (although there is nothing spiritual or noble in liberal ideas). He may die for quite senseless ideas, but he remains a political soldier, and that is very important. The political soldier is an instrumental notion, and should not be hyperbolised. It is a charming, but purely utilitarian element of modernity.

>We believe that, on the level of political anthropology, this political soldier is confronting the decomposed, rhizomatic posthuman android. >We register this reading, and it may seem that we are ready to throw away our ideological differences and for the political soldier to confront the postmodern world. But my thesis is that, from the perspective of the phase shift we are in, we are living in a society where this conflict is possible, but, at the same time, its outcome is predetermined. In fact, the figure of the political man is removed. And his anthropological space is being occupied by a new personality, a very cunning and suspect personality, which is not that of the political soldier, but, at the same time, is not related to the hissing, rhizomatic, twittering sub-individual. This personality is the political man’s simulacrum. >It is something that imitates the political soldier, in the same way that postmodernity imitates Modernity. In the final analysis, the readings do not give us the ‘human vs. posthuman’ scenario. Instead, what we see is the undisguised, rotten liberal posthuman and the pseudo-human, the pseudo-soldier, within whom the general substance of this phase of history has found itself. >This is why we have the phenomenon of contemporary fascism, which is an excellent illustration of this condition. Every last vestige of fascism that was embodied by political soldiers ran out in 1945. Each and every declared fascist after 1945 is a simulacrum. The liberals’ fears, taking the form of fascists, is a complete parody.

>They do not differ much from the decomposed and half-dissolved masses. Communism, which has held out longer than fascism, created its simulacrum within itself. The late Commies were already pseudo-political soldiers. Today there are no chances for Communism to return to life. The same goes for fascism. Soon, we will see that liberalism has arrived at the same point. At least our liberals, who are not really liberals at all, demonstrate this: give them some money, and they will declare anything and everything. We are dealing with entities, lacking anything resembling the classical political anthropology.

>As much as can be discerned, we are dealing with Deleuze’s ‘fold’ (the concept allows for creative thought about the production of subjectivity, and ultimately about the possibilities for and the production of non-human forms of subjectivity): we have the confrontation of post-political anthropology and the pseudo-political soldier. In this case, the antithesis of the posthuman is the non-human. If we face it, we acquire a very complex and intriguing perspective. It is either phantasmagoric despair, to which Baudrillard,[258] describing the world with radical post-historical categories, gave way, or the feeling that we are not satisfied with this fold, this post-anthropological perspective. However, if we grasp the fatality of this pair, we can calmly step back and assess the situation.

>Having raised the question of anthropology, we must look for a solution, and at the same time we must acknowledge this post-anthropology, that is, not wait for what is coming to arrive, but to consider, instead, that it is already here. What do we gain from this perspective? I think that Schmitt, who created the classical approach to the political, might give us some hints. He spoke about political theology. Schmitt said that all political ideologies and systems are integral theological models with religions, dogmas, institutions, and rites of their own. That is why, in order to understand politics, one must regard it as a religious phenomenon. But political theology presupposes the existence of the political telos,[259] which can be constructed by man, like Hobbes’ Leviathan,[260] or it can be of non-human construction, such as the Catholic model of imperium, which was close to Schmitt’s heart. Naturally, in the post-anthropological structure, in postmodernity, this appeal to telos as a political factor which unfolds the system into an integral theology will not help us much, as we have crossed the boundaries of political theology.

>It is impossible to speak about political anthropology while describing the post-anthropological model of today’s politics. We are forbidden to speak about an integral political theology because we have witnessed this fundamental mutation of ‘the fold’. What are we allowed to speak about? We have political processes, sources of power and dispositives of influence, we observe paradigmatic epistemologies, which are pushed and promoted in the same way as they were in the framework of classical politics. They remain with us, which means that the political in its wider sense is here, it is simply that neither man nor God is there. Who is the actor of this post-politics? There is a certain hypothesis that I call the concept of Angelopolis, ‘the city of Angels’ or Angelpolitia (angelic politics) that is a turn from political theology to political angelology. What this means is that the sphere of the political is starting to be controlled by and is starting to ground itself upon the confrontation between superhuman entities. That is entities that are neither human nor divine (or not divine at all). Angelopolis possesses a huge potential to assign political roles without taking humanoids and post-humanoids into account. For example, one may think that a man sends an SMS, but it is actually the SMS that sends itself. Considering the growing level of standardisation and lack of originality in these messages, its over-individualistic essence is becoming more and more evident.


>There really is a command centre in post-politics. There are actors and there are decisions, but they are totally dehumanised in postmodernity. They are beyond the frames of anthropology. We can find a certain proof of this hypothesis in traditional teachings and in traditional eschatologies, which state that the End Times will not be triggered by the human hand, but that it will stop just prior to the final hour. The final act will not depend on man. It will be a war of angels, a war of gods, a confrontation of entities, not tied by historical or economic laws and patterns, and which do not identify themselves with religions or certain political elites. And this angelic war can be thought of politically. That is Angelopolis, or Politische Angelologie, which I bring forward as a concept, devoid of mysticism and esotericism, which has the same sense and nature as Schmitt’s metaphor of ‘political theology’. Political angelology must be considered as a metaphor which is both scientific and rational. Angelopolis is a method to understand, to interpret and to hermeneutically decipher the contemporary processes which surround us and are regarded as being alienated from political anthropology, from humanity as a species, and as a politically institutionalised and constituted notion.

(Dugin, 4PT)
(30.63 KB 600x338 Oo.jpg)
(36.07 KB 323x373 O.jpg)
he is not wrong about this thread though

t. tarrantposter
(306.39 KB 520x595 b1sfsdfs5.png)
This thread glows.
You will get the bullet, nigger.
(109.69 KB 539x960 W.jpg)
Go back to /leftypol/, soyboy. Your testosterone level is too low for this.
How to radicalize yourself?

Live in a majority non-White urban environment.

Be around niggers for more than an hour.

Browse twitter trends.

Listen to jews.
Only kikes and glownigs support mass shooters. Lone wolf violence every few months isn't going to bring about DOTR. We need to look at solutions that actually work. Political campaigns like IOTBW have worked so far, so why stop now? Why get yourself killed so that ZOGnald can ban guns?
Funny how you reject lone wolf tactics as unable to bring about DOTR and then go to praise how well some dumb shit like IOTBW is working so well. IOTBW doesn't do shit to remove shitskins or destabilize ZOG.
>Why get yourself killed so that ZOGnald can ban guns?
Implying the individual life of person matters in the long-term scheme of things. Getting guns banned would be peak acceleration as well. It sounds like you fags are just scared to poke the ZOG beast with a stick and actually doing something, anything to stand up and stop taking ZOG's shit.
You need to wake people up before removing shitskins and destabilizing ZOG. IOTBW exposed a lot of people to the fact that the "correct opinion" is that our existence itself is wrong.

BT managed to accomplish some destabilization, but it's only because of his extreme effectiveness in the operation. You can see that the great majority of shooters accomplish absolutely nothing and it is arguable whether what BT accomplished was positive for our cause. The point was supposed to be to make it so bad for Whites, that we're forced to all wake up and bite back. I don't see that happening. The jews won't turn the heat up because of a couple shooters, they'll just use that to tell the frog that boiling it is the right thing to do.
Perhaps I shit on IOTBW a little too hard in my first post. It isn't totally useless, but to see that type of activism alone as a primary means to removing all non-Whites from our soil eventually and constructing a new, nationalistic and non-degenerate order is silly and bluepilled in some ways. The fact that it exposed that a statement as simple as IOTBW is "wrong" in the eyes of our enemy is important.
>BT managed to accomplish some destabilization, but it's only because of his extreme effectiveness in the operation.
Someone shouldn't even try to get the high score if they aren't the level of people like ABB and BT. Those attacks alone can only be described as devastatingly effective and brought our message, even for a short amount of time, into the public consciousness. The real question for people to consider is whether these "one-and-done" operations are the best thing in the long term for ZOG destabilization. Marxist guerillas give us an interesting counterexample. During the 20th century they toppled countless governments with inferior equipment, forces and training through their ability to wage low-intensity guerilla warfare against the established governments.
>The point was supposed to be to make it so bad for Whites, that we're forced to all wake up and bite back. I don't see that happening.
In NZ the heat has been turned up with the gun-buybacks. These have been largely a failure too. Events rarely seem significant shortly after they happen. What we do know is that in recent years more and more Whites have awakened. We're fringe but the jews are afraid. I will not condemn violence but I too realize that there are limitations to "one-and-done" manifesto-drop strategy. ZOG has to be kept on its toes at all times. I truly don't it surprising that the lemmings are not waking up. I am not a com.munist in the slightest but if one reads Lenin they will learn about his "law of revolution". Revolution does not occur until the government is unable to keep ruling as it has been and the lemmings refuse to live as they have been. Until then, revolution cannot and will not occur. Whites will only get their chance to seize power and topple ZOG when a major crisis shakes our society that causes ZOG to stumble and materially upsets the lemming gravy-train. Until then lemmings will not want to rock the boat for fear of social rejection or losing their jobs. This is what true acceleration strives to bring about.
Hello Mr. FBI Agent, how is your day ?
You're not relevant if you don't have results. Just another high verbal IQ thinktank weenie.

>kikes and traitorous politicians
>George Soros' son

if you think this is so easy go and do it by yourself

>kikes and traitorous politicians
>George Soros' son

if you think this is so easy go and do it by yourself

>kikes and traitorous politicians
>George Soros' son

if you think this is so easy go and do it by yourself

>kikes and traitorous politicians
>George Soros' son

if you think this is so easy go and do it by yourself
(26.99 KB 231x219 spam.jpg)
Note the timestamps. A 3-second lag spike on the Nein server can turn 10 clicks into 10 posts.
Why don't they set up an anti-flood system?
It's not like there have not been flooding attacks here.
Or ZOG-cops and ZOG-soldiers. You have to attack the ZOG-state directly to achieve the highest acceleration.
>Robbed of his voice, the White man will express his rage with the sword as apposed to the pen.
This. The Internet is just yet another (((pressure release valve))) at the end of the day.
>The Internet is just yet another (((pressure release valve))) at the end of the day.
In a way, yes, because the internet helps angry White guys reduce their anger and frustration, but exactly that's the problem! We should all be fucking angry because our people and our race are in danger and this is not a fucking joke! We have to fight to survive and not make memes about it! Our race will be exterminated if we don't wake the fuck up and kill our enemies who want to kill us all! I am really frustrated and angry and I want you guys to feel the same way! And no, I am not a fucking glownigger! I want to fight for my people and my race and kill our enemies! I'm tired of doing nothing and having to live with all this misery! Do something guys! Our people and our race have to survive! Hail victory!

but can be the tool to organize the resistance
But only if we actually do something. Most people here would never do anything. You have to be a sadistic psychopath to kill people. And I am not saying that it's bad to be a sadistic psychopath. Psychopaths are the strongest people in the world! You have to enjoy to kill your enemies and this is only possible if you are a sadistic psychopath! Killing is not wrong it is part of our nature.
>I'm not a glownigger
>We need to shoot a synagogue NOW!

Hey fed-i mean fren, patience, your day will come
(30.63 KB 600x338 Oo.jpg)
You will get the bullet, nigger
Won't be the first time, jew, better men than you have tried
I will enjoy seeing you and your pathetic monkey family bleed in front of me! Don't make White men angry, you stupid nigger!
Hadjis have come closer to killing me than you ever will, sweetie pie. Hell even airline food has
The nigger glownigger calling the White guy a nigger, we've reached levels of irony not thought possible. I'm not one of those supermarket goblins you think about killing when you masturbate to your kike owned Turner diaries fapathons, if you want to end me, you'll actually have to work for once in your life

>You have to be a sadistic psychopath to kill people
wrong, you just need to be a soldier
/pol/ is a board of peace. If you want to stand up for your people then do it
(709.83 KB 1764x1920 1518026867375.jpg)
>kike owned turner diaries
‎lol what is this butthurt shill even doing here? go back to 4cuck faggot
pierce sold the rights to the kikes. he even said that the book wasnt good or realistic


In 1996 Pierce sold the rights to The Turner Diaries to the jewish publisher Lyle Stuart.[38]

I think he did it because of many copycats and terrorist attacks by wignats was inspired by this book, and in order to "stay legal to public eyes", Pierce wanted to little "dissociate" himself from it.

This is why he wrote The Hunter.
Personally, i like this one more, because it's more realistic and especially it describe the main character as "lone wolf", but the smart one, who don't engage in mass shootings, but rather assassinate his targets.

i agree that the hunter is the one that should be read and considered the better of his works. its also not kike owned to the best of my knowledge
And to be a good soldier, you have to like killing your enemies.
>/pol/ is a board of peace.
No, it isn't. Stop taking female hormones, cuck.
I can smell your fear, nigger.
People are militantly commenting

I don't think a good soldier likes to kill his enemies, he rather does
it on duty
Ok boomer
My only fear in regards to you, is dying of laughter

I disagree, the "enjoy to kill" is
basically instincts, the main drive of a good warrior should be mental, ideological, the feeling of be doing the right thing, but that is only my opinion so ...
>the main drive of a good warrior should be mental, ideological, the feeling of be doing the right thing
I think both is important. The drive to kill and the ideology.


no cookies?