This thread is to impart some wisdom to anons who have given cursory thought to White resistance but have yet to consider its finer aspects. It will upset some people very much. But I'd be shocked if anyone will ever articulate how I am wrong on any of these topics. If you dispute anything I say, I'm happy to discuss it in good faith.
Everything I have learned has been from a deep study of dozens of insurgent movements of the past century, with particular focus on the Troubles, Corsican independence movement, Basque insurgency, South Tyrol nationalist movement, and other conflicts that took place between weak local forces and industrialized modern states. I also have studied third world insurgent movements, particularly Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and many other middle eastern asymmetric conflicts.
I personally disavow all illegal action and specifically do not advocate or endorse illegal action of any kind ITT. All posts ITT are hypothetical discussions protected by first amendment speech. As established in multiple US court cases, discussion of hypothetical revolutionary actions are legal, even down to advocating exterminating all jews/capitalists/blacks/politicians/etc. It only becomes illegal when specific actions are being advocated against named individuals. Then it becomes incitement.
I also disavow the term "terrorist" but some folks are okay with the term so, okay. idk why you'd call yourself a terrorist or extremist as this accepts the morality/moderate-ness of the genocidal leftist jews.
#1. "Skull masks."
No serious revolutionary has worn or wears a skull mask. Skull masks exist to frighten people and to make teenagers feel intimidating. But a serious revolutionary is trying to overthrow a government, not frighten normal people into siding with it against them. A skill mask doesn't frighten a politician any more than he will be frightened by a non-descript mask worn by a man who has actually killed politicians. Skull masks are toys for edgy children, not the tool of a serious revolutionary.
#2. "Shooting the children and pets of the elites."
No one who says "we need to shoot the children/pet animals of globalist politicians" has ever studied actual revolutions or insurgencies in the past 50-100 years.
No successful or even mildly successful rebel group does this as a primary method of waging war. Even ISIS didn't explicitly target children. If it's possible for an insurgent group to kill a political enemy without injuring children, they will gain MORE than if they do because children/pets will be photographed and plastered on TV for years and decades to prove that the revolutionaries are child killers. You do not want to go out of your way to help the jews prove that you're a child killer. Why do you think holocaust propaganda usually features children being gassed? Normal people don't like seeing children murdered. Or pets, for that matter.
Put another way: If a group kills a reviled politician, the worst that may happen is public indifference. But if they kill his children instead, even a hated politician will become a figure of sympathy and his children will be used for years to justify harsh actions that the public normally would resist.