An Argument Against Accelerationism Redux

I don’t know if I should feel honored or not that I’ve garnered such attention, but I want to take a moment to thank and acknowledge Mr. Hunter Wallace over at Occidental Dissent for taking the time to rebuke my article against accelerationism, even if I don’t agree with him on all of his points. I invite Mr. Wallace to read my response below.

Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, we are going to forgo the usual gum flapping and jaw jacking and just dive straight into the meat and potatoes. I’d first like to clear the air and say that the demoralized angle may not apply to you or others. Let me be clear in saying this was a generalized statement and in no way directed at anyone in particular. However, if the shoe fits, wear it.

A big point I wish to address is the perceived notion that I am a “conservative” (a charge leveled at multiple people at Identity Dixie). I am not. I am a traditionalist and, at times, find myself in the Red Shirt camp of the broader Southern Nationalist movement. I don’t advocate for conservatism because it is designed at preserving (much good it’s done) the present, instead of taking back what once was. Conservatism is a defensive doctrine, whereas traditionalism is an offensive doctrine. With very few exceptions, such as expanding concealed carry rights and a few other items, I’m right there with you in stating today’s conservatism is a failed ideology. No arguing that.

Another notion that became clear to me upon reading your retort is how both of us view solving the issues at large. Your solution is a top down method, in my opinion. Whereas, my position is one that starts from the bottom up. If you take the time to read my articles, it will become apparent that I advocate reform in communities. This principle comes from the belief that communities are responsible for forming the larger, overarching system. It is merely a different approach, one focused on building better people, better foundations and stronger networks. From there, that very structure can be carried outward when applied to the whole.

Your solution relies on the government to fix our issues. In essence, by destroying itself, our goals will be realized. However, the government is the problem, aside from the nefarious influencers in the background. Consistently, whenever government is utilized as a tool to solve problems, it is either ineffective or outright malicious in solution crafting. So, why would you advocate for government to be the solution? The DMV and VA are completely ineffective; a larger and bloated government administrated by President Yang will be even more disastrous for our people.

My belief is that our people are the solution and NOT the American Empire’s government. Simply hoping the government is going to destroy itself is a fallacy. It will do everything in its power to survive, especially at our own expense. Just ask the people who lived under the Soviet Union (Dekulakization).

A massive oversight in your rebuttal is probably the most critical one of them all – the assumption that a radical leftist government (you thrust into power in your quest to speed up “the happening”) is going to idly stand by and allow you to exist – or any of us, for that matter. Repeatedly throughout history it is observed that whenever major shifts in government happen a few things always occur: dissidents are punished and eliminated, the old is washed away and examples are made of the most prominent. We are on that chopping block, my friend. Sure, you may conflate this to be a position of fear, but I want to make clear this is not where this is coming from.

In a past life, I was an intelligence analyst. It was my job to come up with answers to complex problems which often required complex solutions. This, all of this, is merely one potential solution. A logical and analytical deduction, if you will. I want to be clear in stating that it may not be the solution, but it is merely an option.

My thinking comes from that of a strategist. What can we do to increase our odds of success? That is how I am approaching this. A general of an army never advocates for less time to prepare for a battle – that is ludicrous nonsense and devoid of any rational thinking. If anything, a general always wishes he had more time to prepare for a battle. You are correct in your assessment that massive societal change is incoming. In fact, I say give it another decade or two and it will be here. The current system is physically incapable of sustaining itself and so is the ship you’ve hitched up with (Yang Gang) in a method to sabotage the whole thing in order to bring it down faster. Note: Bane posting isn’t real or a healthy solution for our people.

The principles which built the West were strong and good ones. They were devised by people much smarter than both of us. It is not the principles themselves which are broken, but the fact that we (our people) have strayed from them. Throughout the centuries we have posed the biggest roadblock to leftism’s totalitarian plans. If you think leftism is an ideology that existed within only the last century, then clearly you haven’t traced its roots back to the French. When I say they’ve had a long time to get to this point, I really mean it. It has not been by accident that we find ourselves in the situation we are in. It has only been in the last century that we have seen their ideological goals really accelerate towards completion. The closer the Left get to their goals, the more dysfunctional, broken and disillusioned things become – hence, Clown World.

It goes without saying that the only thing the leftist truly believes is what will give them the power to implement their ‘utopia’ of the world. Your solution is to hand them the keys to the kingdom, where they will do everything they’ve said they are going to do and more. The only reason I would continue to support the current status quo is two things – timing and logistics. I’ve talked about the importance of timing and logistics in other articles. The way I see things is we have neither at the moment. And, we need more time in order to further build the cornerstones necessary to bring things back to the way they were.

Another point you brought up was Trump rekindling the flames of conflict between old rivals and the Empire. I can confidently say, with authority, you are incorrect. My service to the Empire was under Obama. I watched how relations and the image of the country was torn down deliberately by his establishment and his cronies. I watched live, with my own eyes, as Russian tanks crossed the border into the Ukraine. I’ve watched how China has expanded its influence in Africa and the Middle East.

Isn’t it Blompf who rekindled the Cold War with Russia? Isn’t it Blompf and his coterie of neocons who is warmongering against Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Venezeula and other countries? I don’t support international conflict which is one reason why I am not voting him in 2020. – Hunter Wallace

While we are on the subject of China, let’s talk about them. It seems you have forgotten the Chinese government is still communist. As such, the Chinese government only cares about one thing – itself. China does what is good for China, not anyone else (I can’t blame them). After all, surely they are just building military bases in the middle of the ocean and challenging regional rivals for fun, right? Surely they are stealing trade secrets and military secrets to build their own military into a modern fighting force because they just want to be left alone? Surely China would not openly move to distance itself from an old time friend such as North Korea, that has declared China a 1,000 year-old enemy, in order to improve their self image in the global community, right? China doesn’t give a piss about the Dissident Right, Southern Nationalists or Silicon Valley nerds. China cares about China.

Speaking of the other countries you made mention of, I can speak to those as well. Yemen, you mean the one fighting a war with Al Qaeda remnants trying to gain a foothold in the region again? Syria? You mean the country that was on the verge of being entirely taken over by Da’esh (ISIS, ISIL, whatever you want to call them) until combined efforts by BOTH the Russians and Western coalitions crippled the terrorist war machine attempting to establish a modern day Islamic caliphate? There’s more to geopolitics and foreign affairs than memes.

Another thing that deserves attention is the notion that playing into the objectives of an enemy is “winning.” I’ve never met such logic that is so disconnected from reality. I’m truly flabbergasted. The Left isn’t having to modify their objectives with your strategy to win, you are.

A commenter on a recent piece had this to say:

“I’m thinking more of a Ride the Tiger method, like the way Trump did by threatening to send the Invaders to sanctuary cities. He offered them exactly what they seemed to want, and dealt them a huge blow in doing so.”

This is the point I’m getting at: not embracing, but redirecting the leftists’ objectives so it hurts them, not us. Call it an ego trip if you want, but I would rather be seen as an uplifter – the one helping his people, instead of hurting them because “it’s good in the long run.” Already, we are playing a numbers game that we will lose without an effective strategy. Pardon me if I don’t view people as sacrificial pawns to be used and thrown away.

During your whole piece you made it very clear you are upset with conservatism and I don’t blame you. But, I’m not advocating for “stale conservatism.” In fact, no one at Identity Dixie is calling for compassionate conservatism, lauding the Chamber of Commerce or praising Ronald Reagan. It’s utterly bizarre to make such a suggestion. My personal belief is we need to form a new political party, one for ourselves and to build it from the ground up. There’s a reason we advocate for creation versus destruction.

I hope I’ve given you something to think about.

Now that all of that has been said, I want to thank you for personally lighting a fire under my ass. I bear no ill will towards you, so please don’t take it that way. It’s not the manner in which I wrote it.

Maybe in the future we can have one of these again.

Very Respectfully,

Otto

5 comments

  1. Well said. I’ve never agreed with the Machivellian Approach Mr. Wallace apparently advocates, and very likely never will. I’ve written why dozens of times, so no need to repeat it all here. Meanwhile, I share your concerns about being mislabeled “conservative.” In modern America the descriptive “conservative” means “right-liberal.” I don’t necessarily mind it if someone or other labels me a “Traditionalist Conservative,” but I don’t want to be, in any way, associated with neo-conservatism, mainstream conservatism, or “northern conservatism” as it were. Many moons ago, as the indigenous might say, Lawrence Auster informed me via email that “well, Terry, all Americans are liberals in one form and to one extent or another.” Which is very true. The key to all of this is to recognize that fact and, essentially, go “cold-turkey” on liberalism because it is a disease or a disorder, something like alcoholism. We might well need a Southron AA for recognizing our own liberal principles and eliminating them, one issue at a time.

  2. AAAAAAAAAHHHH! MY POMPOUS, LONG WINDED SCREED DISAPPEARED WHEN I SWITCHED TABS!!!1!

    Anyway, Wallace’s basic assumption seems to be that the “elites” are open to discussion and we can fix things with some kind of center-left populism and better discourse on social media. Leaving aside that populism will be dominated by large urban populations, there’s no mention of secession or independence. I think he’s naive, or trolling.

    Otto, you mentioned starting a third party, but have you considered joining and redirecting(ie taking over) one of the hundreds of tiny little parties with only a handful of people? I’m not sure how difficult establishing a party is, but this way skips that step.

    https://votesmart.org/political-parties#.XMnqGbcpAew

    1. “As an INTP Scorpio, I am a very well educated person who likes to think about problems.”

      LOL The former does not predict the latter nor have any bearing on actual intellectual ability.

      I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume its a joke.

  3. I’m an ISTJ-A. Me and hunter are similar in ways and different in others. Our respective articles serve perfectly to highlight that.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.