>>520873475
Leaderless resistance has the weakspot of race politics being against it's favor.
If you have masses of racially inferior idiots who do not project mentally forward a long time or organise in ways that have sensitive weakpoints or any degree of complexity, their reaction to any kind of terrorism will be different and also rather indifferent compared to people who have an organised hierarchical society.
Having a leader has the foremost reason to it to bind societal processes and establish a mechanism that allows to temper a society on the stages of it's inception in their leadership, as well. fe fighting corruption, which causes inefficiency and moral decay, fighting terrorism, which disrupts unity and public safety. So at first signal and reaction = clarification = popularity
Also terrorism also if it endangers white lifes in all likelihood develops towards an establishment of a dictatorship countering it.
Remember: ''Minorities'' establish leaders with the goal of mimicrying real leadership to syphon off gibs, theyre not formally leaders, they're anarchists
So, race mixing and general demoralisation seems like it could mellow out leaderless resistance also, if people accept the collateral damage.
meaning i don't get your wholesale subscription to the idea of leaderless resistance.
At some point people will organise , revolt openly or just seclude and be attacked.
Right wing politics isn't about the joy of revolting, it's mostly about protecting the normal people. And furthermore decency and normalcy interchangeably as the stock of the populace unified under a strong leadership. So ensuring normalcy and protection, enables to recruit from said stock, for policy, in exchange for ensuring a decent existence, through good leadership, being superior. without this, no popular right wing movement makes any sense.
When i read your statements i get the impression you like the idea of revolting but not so much the idea of a purpose behind it, desu.