/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

First off, I'd like to say: /mlpol/ is a board of peace. I do not encourage or condone any violence with this post.

The latest mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, has kept me up with questions. They are, mainly, what benefit (if any) does Crusius's action bring toward our cause, and whether an alternative exists. His stated intent in his (poorly written) manifesto was to bring awareness to mass immigration and to encourage a Race War. However, I don't believe this will have positive ramifications that outweigh the negatives. First off, immigration awareness in the U.S. is already at a high and I don't believe it will bring quislings to our side. As for those who believe in "legal immigration," this will only serve to distance them away from anti-immigration absolutists due to perceived similarity in thought with "terrorists." Granted, there may be exceptions, but I can't imagine anyone we want to join us being swayed and saying, "the shooter has a point." It's possible to turn the situation around by showing how alienation of whites and imminent replacement has led to frustration and violence, but it's inherently defensive and apologetic, as is pointing out how most mass shooters are not actually white (https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/who-are-mass-shooters-mass-shooter-demographics-part-2/). Like the "shootings happen in gun-free zones" argument, it's logically sensible but emotionally weak, and therefore it will always lose in the long-term.

He also directly encouraged a race war, but that's also hardly helpful. WNs have more numbers than we've ever had, but we're still a tiny minority, certainly (far) fewer than 1 in 10 whites. Even if every single one became psychotic, armed up and went on a rampage at once, worse than nothing would be accomplished because the movement would be destroyed. It would be mostly whites vs. whites, non-whites would be only slightly impacted, and the ruling elite would be untouched. Those who are vaguely sympathetic towards us would at the very least avoid us and would probably shoot at us, because no one likes violent gunmen (for good reason). It would be nigh-impossible to obtain new followers at that point because attacking unarmed and generally passive groups is crossing the line for virtually everyone. Same if it was a "slow boil" of unrest among lower-class groups.

What if someone wanted to use violence for "good" and to inspire others toward the same? Well, the obvious answer would be to target the culprits of civilizational collapse. You know whom I mean, but not visible figures like politicians and celebrities (which just creates martyrdom cults). Shadowy and depraved architects generally actually deserve it, after all, and elimination would demoralize the rest (showing they're not invincible) and, given any publicity, would serve as a model. Even civil (to play on words) nationalists would grudgingly admit the globalists "had it coming." Given how the "Cathedral" is a hydra, a few incidents would have little practical effect, but if they ramped up the internal power structure may destabilize, and it could potentially lead to total deposition of the corrupt elite. Arguably, had it been done earlier we may have been saved the whole mess (like Otoya Yamaguchi preserved his country from communism).

So why do we get mass shootings that taint our cause while direct enemies sit high and dry? Firstly, going after the rich and powerful is much more difficult, because by definition they have more exclusive circles and are more insular. Just to obtain access requires extensive research into oft-hidden connections and patterns. To get anywhere close to the same social circles requires wealth, wit, and talent. This necessitates intelligence. I hope you've read The Bell Curve because there's a lot more in it besides showing lower IQ among blacks and hispanics. Low-intelligence people tend to be more violent due to high time preference, while highly intelligent people will plan for their lives, their offspring, and for more material offerings they can make to their cause. Mass shootings require relatively little intelligence/planning and are possible for anyone with a weapon.

Also, impulsive low-IQ people will blame minorities as a whole for their ills (even if they've individually done nothing but live there and soak up tax money). High-IQ people will recognize that the actors near the top are far more guilty (and harmful) than even hundreds of commoners, but due to aforementioned reasons are less likely to carry out an attempt and have much more to lose by doing so.

Finally, unless one somehow brings a Tommy Gun to a high-society gathering (nigh-impossible), he's not getting a "high-score" by going after elites (you would have to settle for being Jacques). Unarmed shoppers or worshippers are easy targets and so it's far easier to "make a name" for oneself going on a rampage. If one is already committed to killing then it appeals to vanity much more to kill dozens of non-whites, though it contributes nothing or less than nothing.

This is the reason why I doubt many mass killings are actually false flags. It makes sense why low-intelligence whites (who are probably the most frustrated) commit racially-motivated mass shootings, even if the rest of us think it's counter-intuitive. A possible way to avoid it would be if more high-IQ whites took "subtle" action, or if professional cells, somehow insulated from infiltration, coordinated action. I don't see how it could work out in any case.

Also, keep in mind this is entirely U.S. focused. SA necessitates entirely different strategies, and St. Tarrant (who is obviously very intelligent) took the right steps in NZ because Islam is an active threat in many peoples' subconsciouses. It's essential to scrutinize differences between him and his copy-cats (and Dylan Roof).