> whether it's in reaction to something or not is irrelevant this asserts there is *not* a qualitive difference, let alone *morally*, between action and reaction. A perfect example of this mistake would be to suggest that self defense in response to physical violence is as bad as someone who initially engages in violence. And from this example we can draw the conclusion that there is an obvious difference. The moral obligation does not fall onto the ones responding to an affront or attack, but justly and rightly upon those who initatiated the confrontation. It can be no other way. The greatest burden of duty that can be said to even fall upon those imposed on, is at most the requirement of equal and measured response i.e. 'reasonable force, and even that is a matter of opinion. > "Accelerationists" they want to accelerate what? Collapse, societal/civilizational collapse, the fall, nothing less. Just like anarchists... Because then after that... The project can finally start! There is natural hope in the want to rebuild, regardless of who initiated the collapse, and here you seem to suggest some vile utopian idealism for the reactionary side. The opponent who once engages in violating the basic premises of law and order, removes the obligation for their enemies to obey those same rules when engaging with them. Anything else, to suggest thats not fair, to suggest wanting better (as the worst among our enemies claim), is none other than sour grapes, and tells me where you stand. > Anarcho communists they also want a return to "order" ultimately... A communist order. Post system collapse evidently... "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs"... Still ignoring the moral difference between attack and those reacting to attack. It sounds like some people can't *accept* when they attack civilization, that elements of civilization will choose to fight fire with fire, instead of continuously giving up ground while staying on the designated dissident camp of the "moral high ground" designed to paint us into a corner. If the goal is achievable through the means, and the goal is thus one of many evinced within the designs of the means, then it is also natural, that pushed hard enough, it breaks through to its opposite. That is, acceleration isn't a tactic *owned* by any idealogy or camp. They don't get to claim it as their own. But interfering by using their own tactics against them is no moral wrong, when without doing so, they will win against everyone else. The only difference is who gets to decide the outcome. Your post is to soros DAs letting out murders, what police are to arresting people who shoot murderers breaking into their houses. Your post is to the confusion-of-defense-vs-offense what DAs prosecuting people for self defense are to those who shoot home invaders. > From anarcho communists to anarcho capitalists... To so called accelerationists. It's the exact same line of reasoning Reasoning is a tool of which no moral agency rests upon it, but by those who exercise it. In other words, don't blame the truth just because villains exploit it. And the truth is we cannot win with the current system, where the opposition is destroying civilization, while forcing us into a corner made of rules made by our enemies. That is a fact. > Accelerationists are eventually more flexible ideologically speaking, eventually. They are willing to ally with pretty much anybody, BLM included, as long as it goes/accelerates things in the right direction Thats like a terrorist claiming to be a demolitions expert because in the end "both buildings fall to the ground." No. One falls sideways, the other falls in a rapid and controlled descent. > Toward collapse, anarchy Anarchy is collapse to disorder or the lack of order. Accelerationism is the collapse and reversion to *default order*, and the *externalization* of disorder, hence the parallel movement to 'back to the land'. The key is not simply to collapse as fast as possible (because collapse is inevitible either from the accelerationists, or else from the anarcho-communists), but to do so before the other side has a chance to realize and prepare. The goal being, when all is said and done, only one faction remains standing, organized, to seize the political vacuum. The communists and anarchists while wanting to do the same thing, have no means to do that. They assume, like all hollow idealists, that communism will 'just arise naturally', and they make no great preparations for the transition besides the basic human materials necessary for slave labor. Which is why they always result in mass death, famines, and genocides. > The actual far right, is more putch oriented, traditionally speaking. But given the state of affairs and their limited options... They'll turn accel/anarcho, for lack of better alternative... Solid possibility. > If it's not already the case... "when shit will finally collapse... Then we will...." <- this collective will/ambition/project, revolves around the very state of anarchy; without anarchy/collapse, there's no "then we will", there's no raison d'être Where its a *reaction to* an attack or campaign, the tactics and strategies employed by those reacting, do not morally impunge on those implementing them. Otherwise we're right back to "two wrongs don't make a right", when the issue at hand has been elevated above the quandary of morality, to a matter of who survives and who doesn't. In these matters, all issues of life and death begger all questions of wrong or right. You may protest it. You may despise it. But it does not change that we don't get the luxury of fighting an enemy on level ground. Which Anyone else fighting at any other level, is going to lose, whether they are aware of it, or not. > The conservative revolutionary concept of the anarch as articulated by German philosopher Ernst Jünger is central to national-anarchism. History is written by victors, and philosophers are sophists paid for by influence-brokers with murderous socialist utopian visions, paid for with blood money from the socialist corporate-welfare looters we call banks. This is just masturbating using their words for lube, and I'm uninterested in getting into the weeds of it behind the discussion equivalent of a gay bathhouse. > The conservative revolutionary concept of the anarch as articulated by German philosopher Ernst Jünger is central to national-anarchism.[4] National-anarchists stress that the "artificial nationalism" of the nation state which they claim to oppose must be distinguished from the primordial "natural nationalism" of the people (volk) which they believe in its more consistent expressions is a legitimate rejection of both foreign domination (imperialism) and internal domination (statism). National-anarchists see "American global capitalism", consumerism, globalization, immigration, liberalism, materialism, modernity, multiculturalism, multiracialism and neoliberalism as the primary causes of the social decline of nations and cultural identity.[4] They propose a strategic and ideological alliance of ethnic and racial nationalists and separatists around the world (especially in the Global South), neo-Eurasianists in Russia, Islamists in Muslim-majority countries and anti-Zionists everywhere to resist the New World Order—globalization viewed as an instrument of American imperialism and the antisemitic canard of Jewish-dominated international banking—that is inevitably leading to global economic collapse and ecological collapse.[4][5] In short, yes. > for a self-sufficient commune which is politically meritocratic, economically pre-capitalist And in comes the gay-bathhouse well poisoning. Hence why we're not getting into the weeds. You can bend over anyone else, but you're not gonna bend me over with this topsy-turvy nonsense, and I'm not gonna engage in the gay circle jerk word-masturbation of some dead guy no one cares about. Self sufficiency is great. Communes are bullshit. "Pre-capitalist" is code for "commune", which we can reduce to the empty rhetorical technique of alliteration. > National-anarchists claim that "national autonomous zones" (NAZs) More well poisoning, so the regime can tack an 'i' onto it and those who accept it can spend decades accomplishing nothing while fighting a badjacketing as the boogieman, rope-a-dope, the same way the libertarians were neutralized as kooks. > residence without the strict ethnic divisions and violence advocated by other forms of "blood and soil" ethnic nationalism. editorialization. tl;dr. At any point in this giant thoughtless copypasta, did you have any original thoughts of your own? I feel dumber for having read it. Although I do want to say thank you for having posted some much-needed new conversation material on poal. And also I'd like to thank you for helping to identify another subversive author, Ernst Jünger, whos books and work need thrown on the bonfire. Finally, if it wasn't clear, I reject the comparison to mere anarchists or other such villainy.