these i hate. to agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result. depending on the definition. why did you choose this time to attack? the europe of the future is not one of concrete and steel, smog and wires but a place of forests, lakes, mountains and meadows. something that had been a part of my life for as long as i could remember, cynicism in the face of attacks on the west by islamic invaders, was suddenly no longer there. our lands are not their home, they can return to their own lands or found their homelands elsewhere. won ’ t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights in the new zealand? diversity is anathema to equality. i will be forgotten quickly. in the event of an engagement i had the somewhat quixotic notion of shouting down responding state enforcers, intimidating them into dropping their weapons and if that failed, only targeting non-vital areas of their body such as the anterior of the thigh, shoulder or a side-on through shot of the calf, hamstring or gluteal muscles so as to cause the least amount of harm as possible and to allow for a quick recovery.
a vote for a radical candidate that opposes your values and incites agitation or anxiety in your own people works far more in your favour than a vote for a milquetoast political candidate that has no ability or wish to enact radical change. these situations are chaotic and virtually impossible to control, no matter the planning. the united states is in turmoil, more so that at any other time in history. was the attack anti-diversity in origin? but once i arrived in france, i found the stories to not only be true, but profoundly understated. and above all they don ’ t even care if it does.