Smitty-48 wrote:Violence as necessary but not necessarily violence, bear in mind, when you attack a leftist entrenched interest, even when you have mandate to do so, there will be resistance, they will insurge to defend their interests, where the right needs to find its mettle, is simply not quailing in the face of the resistance, if your mandate is waylaid, then force must be employed to impose it, which will likely involve some violence inevitably, but as the resistance is invariably outside the bounds of parley and in contravention of the mandate therein, force is warranted, and all force is violence in the end, musn't be squeamish, being squeamish about enforcing mandates in the face of leftist insurgents, is to capitulate, the time for refusing to capitulate, is upon us.
There's nothing to fear in using force, of course the left wing media will hyperventilate about it, but so what? How many divisions does the left wing media have? None. The media has no credibility, the bourgeoisie are docile, there will no consequences for using force, other than that our mandates will be enforced, and rightly so.
It is simply time, to call the bluffs of the left, where they threaten insurgency in the face of our mandates, as insurgents we must treat them, and how does one treat an insurgent? Well you certainly use brute force as necessary, even if not necessarily brute force.
The idea that no one advocates violence against their ideological opponents, is utter nonsense, of course we do, all sides will resort to force of one sort or another, and all forces is violence in the end, it's just a question of who has the resolve to prevail, regardless of the hysterical blubbering about it in the media.
Violence as necessary but not necessarily violence, bear in mind, when you attack a
rightist entrenched interest, even when you have mandate to do so, there will be resistance, they will insurge to defend their interests, where the left needs to find its mettle, is simply not quailing in the face of the resistance, if your mandate is waylaid, then force must be employed to impose it, which will likely involve some violence inevitably, but as the resistance is invariably outside the bounds of parley and in contravention of the mandate therein, force is warranted, and all force is violence in the end, musn't be squeamish, being squeamish about enforcing mandates in the face of
rightists insurgents, is to capitulate, the time for refusing to capitulate, is upon us.
There's nothing to fear in using force, of course the
right wing media will hyperventilate about it, but so what? How many divisions does the
rigth wing media have? None. The media has no credibility, the bourgeoisie are docile, there will no consequences for using force, other than that our mandates will be enforced, and rightly so.
It is simply time, to call the bluffs of the
rigth, where they threaten insurgency in the face of our mandates, as insurgents we must treat them, and how does one treat an insurgent? Well you certainly use brute force as necessary, even if not necessarily brute force.
The idea that no one advocates violence against their ideological opponents, is utter nonsense, of course we do, all sides will resort to force of one sort or another, and all forces is violence in the end, it's just a question of who has the resolve to prevail, regardless of the hysterical blubbering about it in the media.
Yes, that works.
