Ultimate Argument for Violent Accelerationism

  • 🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
    🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
owned by kikes so it will try to "invade" America.
And the USA isn't?
control over white homelands
That is a funny way of saying Europe.
Delusional optimism. A failed revolution leads to justified oppression. There's a mandate after a failed revolution.
It does sometimes lead to later system collapse. Even India managed it, you just need to be more trouble than gain for your conquerors.
 
Even India managed it, you just need to be more trouble than gain for your conquerors.
As always independance is gained because of larger geopolitical concerns. The US wouldn't have gained independance from britain without french support. Giving independance to India was a way to prevent a risk of flipping to soviet control during the cold war.

It's not like I know a great deal about India's history, but didn't their first revolution in the 1950s cement british rule firmly? A failed revolution almost always means more control for the group being revolted against. Another example is the failed communist revolt of pre-nazi germany.
 
1. To slowly decay without revolution, dying permanently and painfully
This is your reality and accelerationism/civil war is the cope. While I think that accelerationists are correct in their assumption that things need to get worse before they get better, what they don't seem to understand is that there isn't some kind of mass awakening breaking point. Things are just going to keep getting shittier, and when the state finally fragments it'll be because it can no longer physically manage it's territory and regional powers have started to fill the vacuum, not because some battle was won. There's not going to be a pop off moment where this happens all at once either, it's going to be a process so gradual that these fragmented states probably won't even be officially recognized as such for decades. No matter what happens the chances that you are going to experience a post-collapse revival in your life time is basically nil. You should probably make peace with that.
 
As always independance is gained because of larger geopolitical concerns. The US wouldn't have gained independance from britain without french support. Giving independance to India was a way to prevent a risk of flipping to soviet control during the cold war.

It's not like I know a great deal about India's history, but didn't their first revolution in the 1950s cement british rule firmly? A failed revolution almost always means more control for the group being revolted against. Another example is the failed communist revolt of pre-nazi germany.

It does mean harsher short period (30-60 year) crackdowns. You are right, but the threat of revolt will count in favour of independence when there is a big geopolitical shakeup. Which in the long term is pretty much guaranteed. There is one every one or two centuries.

There are a few examples that didn't work out like that, most in Hungary. But they eventually lead to better conditions for the Hungarians as a result.
 
This is your reality and accelerationism/civil war is the cope. While I think that accelerationists are correct in their assumption that things need to get worse before they get better, what they don't seem to understand is that there isn't some kind of mass awakening breaking point.
I see you're living in an entirely different reality where coups and revolutions never happen, at least as long as you only count certain set of countries in a certain small timeframe as "real world" while discarding everything that happens outside (even though their reality operates on same fundamental laws)
Things are just going to keep getting shittier, and when the state finally fragments it'll be because it can no longer physically manage it's territory and regional powers have started to fill the vacuum, not because some battle was won.
The battle would be won by whoever overtakes those territories.
Also, "impossibility of managing" can be achieved intentionally.
There's not going to be a pop off moment where this happens all at once either, it's going to be a process so gradual that these fragmented states probably won't even be officially recognized as such for decades.
"Recognized" lol. Recognition isn't real state power, just like trannies aren't real women. The "western" (actually jewish anti-western) regimes are the ones who are mainly responsible for "recognizing", and people only care about this bullshit because they have strong armies and big economies. If some new regime overtakes western countries, then who decides "recognition"?
Another point: Somalia is "recognized" as one state. Crimea is "recognized" as Ukraine. Taiwan and Maintain China "recognize" eachother's territories as their own. South and North Korea also do this.
No matter what happens the chances that you are going to experience a post-collapse revival in your life time is basically nil. You should probably make peace with that.
Depends on how old are you.
 
It's not like I know a great deal about India's history, but didn't their first revolution in the 1950s cement british rule firmly? A failed revolution almost always means more control for the group being revolted against. Another example is the failed communist revolt of pre-nazi germany.
The success of replacing whites depends on willingness of shitskins to immigrate. If for several months shitskins will be blatantly killed in streets attracting immigrants will become near impossible in close future, even if government is not overthrown.
And the USA isn't?
If USA overthrows it's government but Mexican one stays.
That is a funny way of saying Europe.
And settler colonies too.
It does sometimes lead to later system collapse. Even India managed it, you just need to be more trouble than gain for your conquerors.
Kikes are insane and think they're gonna somehow summon their messiah or something through shit they do. They will not "give up" but rather undermine their own power through unability to think rationally. The whole "lets replace whites to control their countries" thing itself is a horribly retarded plan unless you're a retarded cultist who thinks whites are devils and you're creating some schizo jewish thousand year kingdom by doing so.
To fight kikes, you need to drive them to insanity till they do something retarded rather than negotiate.
 
I see you're living in an entirely different reality where coups and revolutions never happen, at least as long as you only count certain set of countries in a certain small timeframe as "real world" while discarding everything that happens outside (even though their reality operates on same fundamental laws)
And who's leading a coup exactly? Who are the supposed competing powers? Peasant revolts don't happen on their own, so it doesn't matter how much politispergs hate each other. It's a big retard alert if you think Republicans and Democrats are really at each-other's throats in any significant capacity.
The battle would be won by whoever overtakes those territories.
In the US in particular the people who "overtake" these territories are more than likely going to be the already established state/local governments operating to the best of their ability with diminished federal support. I am not a Slav history pro, but to my understanding this is functionally what happened when the USSR collapsed.
Also, "impossibility of managing" can be achieved intentionally.
I suppose certain people are in a position to steer things that way, but the system is more robust than you believe.
"Recognized" lol. Recognition isn't real state power, just like trannies aren't real women. The "western" (actually jewish anti-western) regimes are the ones who are mainly responsible for "recognizing", and people only care about this bullshit because they have strong armies and big economies. If some new regime overtakes western countries, then who decides "recognition"?
Another point: Somalia is "recognized" as one state. Crimea is "recognized" as Ukraine. Taiwan and Maintain China "recognize" eachother's territories as their own. South and North Korea also do this.
This is totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. What I'm saying is that the transition would be so gradual that the world wouldn't even be able to accurately pinpoint when a state functionally left the union. Again I'm not a Slav history pro, but it is to my understanding that most of the republics in the USSR were functionally independent of Moscow way before the 90s, even though they were still officially part of the USSR.
 
South Africa is minority white, which makes accelerationism and destabilization benefit nigger majority.
America is to now you fucking retarded nigger, don’t worry though, if we import MORE VIOLENT NIGGERS WHO WILL NEVER LEAVE, the goyi- i mean the white man will finally rise up! It definitely won’t just turn America into Brazil.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo