How "accelerationism" supposedly works:
-
Terrorist attack
-
The government uses the attack as an excuse to take away rights and freedoms
-
The populace freaks out over losing freedoms and overthrows the government
How "accelerationism" actually works:
-
Terrorist attack
-
The government uses the attack as an excuse to take away rights and freedoms
-
That's it. Nothing else happens.
I'm willing to bet that a year from now, the political climate in Australia and New Zealand will not be markedly different from today. There will be no "escalation", no further conflict, and no real change in the lives of people, except for the loss of free speech and gun rights in the wake of the recent attack. The attack and subsequent removal of rights will not prompt any mass awakening or popular revolt.
History shows us this is what happens every time. You can look back at many similar attacks that were later used to justify the removal of freedoms, and there was no mass revolt afterwards, and those freedoms were ultimately never restored.
I'm happy to debate this. However, time is all I need to prove me right. If "accelerationism" is correct, then New Zealand, Australia, and likely much of the West would be considerably more violent and conflicted by the end of this year, possibly even engaged in some kind of civil war. If I'm correct, then they will be basically the same except with less freedom for the average person. At the end of this year we'll see who is right.
Civil war and "accelerationism" are pipe dreams. No one can tell you when these will ever happen, although they tell you they'll happen "soon". This is because they're illusions with no basis in reality. They're fantasies somebody came up with because dreaming of an epic societal collapse is less work than raising a family or building a community.
"Accelerationism" is a path to losing freedom, nothing more. It is a path to failure.
view the rest of the comments →
dontforgetaboutevil ago
Couple things. One you are implying that the people who cannot rebel when their freedoms are taken away can do something about that process if they get ahead of it somehow. If you really hold that position then you don't think really think rebellion is impossible. Furthermore history has shown that rebellion does in fact happen. In fact it doesn't even require poverty and starvation. The roman conflict of the orders is a good example of "middle class allfuent" people rebelling against the nobility literally over abuse of rights.
Now as far as new zealand ans australia go honestly I have never had much respect for the commonwealth territories of the former english empire. These people are highly inured to submission and obedience to a distant authority who does not care about their rights. So frankly you are probably correct in your assessment of these panty wearers.
However, I think when it comes to America the situation is much more dynamic. For one thing we are a people whose history was created by telling our bosses overseas to go fuck themselves. We have a guaranteed right by our constitution to bare arms as well. Gun ownership and self defense is woven into the fabric of America and it is how we settled this massive nation in the face of hostile indians, mexicans and the goddamned english.
I think that accelerationism is also a pretty stupid name for a concept. I think that it is originally a term from another language that is translated into english and that is why it sounds so hollow and without a definition linking to a reality based phenomenon. And so I name you foreigner. I doubt very seriously you've grown up in any of the countries you are judging. Furthermore I warn you about prognostication. It's the best way to be wrong.
Delacourt ago
You're right, rebellion can and does happen. However, as you note, it requires the support of "middle class affluent" people to work. A rebellion cannot exist without organization, numerical support, or material resources. The American Revolution is the perfect example of this. It had the support of the majority of the populace including many of the most wealthy. It was united by a common ideology and was also highly organized and competent. I see none of this in the "accelerationists" of today.
I agree that "accelerationism" is a stupid term. That's why I always use it in quotes. No one really knows what it means, in fact a few years ago it used to mean something totally different. I am just using the common definition as it stands today, which is retarded.
I could be wrong, but if I'm not it's absolutely vital that I spread the truth before it gets worse. I firmly believe that the current situation is going to end up exactly like the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was largely inspired by the Oklahoma City bombings, but politicians did not have the balls to enact such drastic and tyrannical measures until 9/11 happened and gave them the perfect justification. There was a lot of criticism regarding the Patriot Act, but nothing ultimately happened. There was no mass uprising or civil war. I believe exactly the same will happen here, and in more places if the suicidal ideology of "accelerationism" continues.
dontforgetaboutevil ago
I think we got caught with our pants down with the patriot act. Everybody was in shock and I think on a lot of levels people just were not really paying attention to legislation at the time. We were more focused on who hit us, why and how we were gonna hit back.
Frankly no domestic terror event is going to be as focus demanding as a foreign attack. Especially one demanding a serious and heavy military response. Especially not a domestic terror event in another country.
This new zealand stuff is a 5.0 at on the bullshit scale at best. 9/11 was a 7.8. I think only an actual invasion or a nuclear event would rate higher than 9/11 did.
Furthermore I want to go back to what I said about our pants being caught down. Ultimately nobody expected the government to get so shady with the legislation while we were all getting hopped on kill and revenge. We saw it happening. I know it was discussed but ultimately it happened so fast and with so little public interaction that nobody really knew what to do.
The reason I bring that up and think it is significant is because I believe people will not be fooled and caught so unaware again. Also there is a lot of shade cast on 9/11. As years go by fewer and fewer people believe the official story. So when the patriot act is brought up a lot of americans feel an inner twist of anger about it.
Gun control is a little bit different than something as nasty as the patriot act. But ultimately and at last I don't think the gun owning of the US will put up with much more gun control. Groups are getting more and more organized to fight this both in courts and at the lobbying level. But in the end even if all the talk fails.
Molon Labe goddamnit.