Editor’s Note: Typos have been corrected.
In his YouTube stream this evening, Joachim Hoch called for an “honest engagement” and a “serious and “well-intentioned” discussion of the merits of the 3.0 paradigm and strategy vs. the merits of the 1.0 paradigm and strategy of leaderless resistance and violent accelerationism. He claims to be interested solely in “a contest of ideas” rather than carrying on a personal pissing contest.
Joachim claims that his position on the morality and merits of violence and terrorism as a political strategy in last night’s stream has been misrepresented (4:35)
If that is the case, then why has Joachim removed last night’s stream with Matt Parrott from his YouTube channel? Why not leave it uploaded for everyone can watch the stream and judge for themselves whether or not my characterization of it as an hour and a half of fedposting is true?
Joachim claims I didn’t watch the debate (5:35)
I got a DM on Twitter about it. I watched the entire stream last night.
Joachim offers to debate our differences (8:37)
As I told Joachim on Twitter before he blocked me, I live in a rural area with shitty internet which has given me problems doing YouTube livestreams. I would much rather respond to him anyway in this format.
Joachim doesn’t accept Matt Parrott’s belief that we are in a generational conflict (10:57)
As a Southerner, I disagree because it took us several generations to shake off Reconstruction and construct the Jim Crow South. Also, the demographics of the Jim Crow South were worse than our present racial demographics in South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Joachim points out that our kids will inherit a world in which they have become a racial minority (11:51)
As a father and husband, why does Joachim think I am involved in this scene? I have a stake in the future. That’s why I believe we need to be confronting the outside world with a new sense of seriousness rather than just continuing with the juvenille trolling and bantzing.
Joachim characterizes my position on these issues as a continuation of the 2018 optics debate in the Alt-Right (13:20)
I stand by my criticisms of the 2.0 movement’s optometrists which has proven to be an ineffective strategy. I’m approaching these issues from a very different perspective.
Joachim wonders who is in the header image of the previous article (13:53)
It is a scene from the 2003 movie “Luther” in which Martin Luther confronts the fanatics who are attempting to torch a Catholic church. I chose that image and sub-titled the article “Against the fanatics” in order to draw attention to my Lutheran faith in the debate on the morality of violence. Martin Luther had a term for the fanatics of his day. He called them Schwärmer.
Joachim denies advocating terrorism (14:01)
I would say that Joachim is being disingenuous here. He really was making the case for violence and terrorism as a strategy. If we are to take his position seriously that he doesn’t believe any of it, then what is his actual strategy if everything he said last night was just for lulz? What’s the point of debating irony? He critiqued Matt Parrott’s strategy which was an earnest defense of street activism.
Joachim claims that non-violence is ridiculous (15:13)
The overwhelming majority of White people in this country believe that political violence is immoral. Joachim simply dismisses their moral beliefs as irrelevant to White survival. That’s what is ridiculous and it is symptomatic of how the 2.0 movement is out of touch with reality.
Joachim tries to argue that I am “morally broken” for writing about the Jewish Question and race relations on this website (18:38)
As a Southern antiquarian, I occasionally use the term “negro” or “negroes.” How is that morally indefensible? I don’t have any time for political correctness.
Joachim claims the 1.0 movement and 2.0 movement have a solid moral foundation (19:23)
After dismissing the moral beliefs of virtually everyone in the country who isn’t a sociopath, Joachim claims that 1.0 and 2.0 are morally sound.
Joachim claims that Whites are being genocided (19:40)
White genocide is a meme.
The purpose of the meme was to raise awareness about changing racial demographics. Unfortunately, it seems that some people have taken the meme and construed it to mean that, say, Overland Park victim Reat Griffin Underwood is literally guilty of genociding the White race which is an absurd conclusion. The truth about changing racial demographics is more complex than a meme and won’t be solved by an action as simple as going out and shooting random people like Yosemite Sam.
Joachim claims White people are going extinct (19:48)
The White population is declining from its world historical high, but it is hardly going extinct. It isn’t alone in that respect either. Virtually all developed industrialized countries are going through the same demographic transition with declining birthrates.
Joachim claims that survival is its own morality (19:55)
No, that’s barbarism.
Westerners are a civilized people with a deep and rich moral tradition. Joachim is comparing us to animals now. I don’t think we should be encouraging our people to act like animals. We’re not going to persuade our target audience by comparing them to salamanders.
Instead, I believe we should be taking these deracinated people who have been stripped of their own culture and heritage and educating them so that they can start practicing the virtues and obeying God’s law to become better men and women like their ancestors.
Joachim claims that organisms don’t need to justify their own survival (20:00)
While this is true, it is an evasion of the reality of the situation. We live in a world in which our people are being taught to hate themselves and that their displacement in their own lands is in the best interests of humanity. It would be much easier to simply confront that evil argument.
Joachim argues there is no morality in how the real world operates (20:06)
Once again, Joachim makes my point that the 1.0 and 2.0 movements lacked a strong moral foundation.
Joachim catches the contradiction (20:15)
In reality, economics and military conflict are governed by morality. It is against the law to engage in fraud because it is immoral. Similarly, the conduct of war is restrained by international law.
Joachim argues that William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell and James Mason were morally sound (20:48)
Why are the SIEGE posters so enraptured by this Helter Skelter nonsense? William Pierce wrote violent fantasy novels like The Turner Diaries and Hunter and even created his own cult for alienated people called Cosmotheism.
Joachim says that we should only care about White survival (22:16)
What does that mean?
If everyone has the sovereign right to murder anyone else in the name of survival, then how can any White society function? The answer is that it couldn’t function. It would just collapse into anarchy. Furthermore, the people who say we need to focus on “White survival” also paradoxically seem to be the people least invested in starting families. Look at Harold Covington or William Pierce who were estranged from their own families.
Joachim denies that there are lots of morally broken people in the 1.0 and 2.0 movements (22:47)
I strongly disagree.
My impression is that there are lots of new people who are immersed in a sort of vulgar, violent and nihilistic online discourse who are unable to articulate a moral argument beyond claiming that might makes right. The overwhelming majority of them don’t seem to be interested in really engaging with the moral arguments of their critics either.
Joachim denies advocating murdering people and claims it is a “dishonest misrepresentation” of his position (25:38)
If Joachim’s take on violent accelerationism is all “wink wink, just kidding you guys,” then what is his actual real strategy? He didn’t approach the question from the objective vantagepoint of “this is what these guys believe.” Instead, he was going to bat for it as a strategy.
Joachim accuses me of intellectual cowardice for ignoring Tarrant’s manifesto (26:01)
Is there something new in the manifesto? I didn’t get the impression it was anything other than the same old violent accelerationism. It wasn’t necessary to read the manifesto. I have been writing about people who are violent accelerationists for over a decade now.
Joachim claims that Tarrant is a soldier in a race war (26:09)
If he is saying that Tarrant was lashing out in the name of the violent accelerationist community, then he is right. However, it simply isn’t true that Tarrant was a soldier. He wasn’t fighting on behalf of a state or any legitimate authority but at best an online community of other fanatics because no one else outside that milieu shares his assumptions.
Tarrant was like American soldiers in Somalia (28:00)
No, American soldiers in Somalia were fighting on behalf of a sovereign state, which is why their actions were seen as legitimate in their communities.
Joachim claims that murder and political violence are actually different (28:05)
No, these people are arrested and prosecuted for being murderers and criminals. This is true of both Floyd Lee Corkins and Brenton Tarrant.
Joachim claims that I have justified 9/11 and defended Lincoln’s assassination and secession (29:40)
The Southern States seceded from the Union. Confederate soldiers fought for their States of which they were citizens. John Wilkes Booth assassinated a sitting president in wartime on behalf of the Confederacy. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were caused by blowback to American foreign policy. None of that is remotely analogous to various people on the internet convincing themselves that they are justified in murdering random people.
Joachim claims that Tarrant is more serious than me (30:05)
Now that a handful of Muslims in New Zealand have been exterminated, has the White race been saved? Did that action have any impact at all on the fate of the White race in New Zealand? In the sense that the result of it was banning guns, I suppose Joachim can argue that it did. The people of New Zealand were stripped of their rights for the sake of a few dead irrelevant people who could be conscripted into the anti-White propaganda as martyrs of multiculturalism.
Joachim claims that John Earnest was successful (30:33)
My reaction was that it was a damn shame that Earnest didn’t develop his musical talent to advance the movement. Instead, he was convinced by a bunch of idiots on an online forum in the efficacy of the gun that jammed on him. It’s not a mistake that he will ever come back from either.
Joachim compares the Sonnenrad to the Confederate flag (30:55)
This is an example of the sort of pure fantasy ideology of thinking in terms of tropes, symbols and narratives and individual self-expression that has no correspondence to reality like, say, the historical state that was the Confederacy that I quoted at length in the previous article. The Confederacy was real whereas all this nonsense was pure fiction.
Joachim uses group selection to justify Tarrant’s actions (33:38)
I would argue it was natural selection. In this case, Tarrant removed himself from the gene pool while leaving New Zealanders even less capable of resisting violent oppression by the state. The people who survive and reproduce will fight back in a more clever way.
Joachim reiterates the White Genocide argument (34:35)
Dude, it is a meme that is supposed to draw your attention to a highly uncomfortable truth which is a bit more complex.
Joachim blames the CofCC for Dylann Roof (38:16)
My friend Kyle wrote about black-on-White crime for the CofCC. Dylann Roof never joined the group. He never got the idea of murdering anyone from the group either. Instead, we learned at his trial that he got that idea from Hollywood movies.
Roof was highly critical of groups like the CofCC who he felt “weren’t doing anything” because no one in South Carolina wanted to be like Romper Stomper. The CofCC didn’t motivate Dylann Roof to kill anyone, but that experience made us much more aware of the existence of “wound collectors” who might misinterpret our coverage of sensitive issues and twist it to justify their own actions.
Joachim resents being compared to Son of Sam (39:48)
Joachim really was chortling on the livestream last night about Helter Skelter and Charles Manson’s cult followers.
Joachim accuses the League of the South of fantasy ideology (43:06)
In Charlottesville, the League went to Unite the Right to honor the memory of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson who are two of the South’s greatest heroes and support preserving their monuments. Even the majority of black people in Virginia agree with the League’s position.
Joachim claims not to be familiar with Glenn Miller (46:00)
This really says it all.
I knew Glenn Miller for nearly ten years before his shooting in Overland Park, KS. He was a fixture on the internet. I dismissed him as just a buffoonish Boomer from the 1.0 movement. I didn’t take Miller’s violent rhetoric nearly as seriously as I should have because I saw him as essentially being a Don Quixote type of comic book character. As with Roof, I have tried to learn something from that experience and now I have much less tolerance for that sort of mindset.
Joachim claims the Glenn Miller synagogue shooting was random violence (47:42)
It wasn’t random violence at all. Rounder went to the synagogue to exterminate the GD_kikes after arguing in favor of it for years. No one believed he was actually serious about doing it.
Joachim laughs at the idea that violent accelerationism ends in federal prison (46:00)
Ever hear of The Order? The Fort Smith Trial? Joseph Paul Franklin? The crackdown that happened after Oklahoma City in the 1990s? There is a long and storied history of the “leaderless resistance” movement being crushed, ratting each other out and being sent to federal prison. Entire books have been written about it like Leonard Zeskind’s Blood and Politics.
Joachim dismisses 3.0 as corporate bullshit (50:00)
If it sounds like corporate bullshit, it is because I was being deadly serious about innovation as a strategy. I never hear the term innovation brought up in the strategy debate. Isn’t it obvious at this point that we should be innovating a new approach to the issues?
Joachim wonders whether I am the coach (50:11)
At this point, I am willing to make an effort to create a better paradigm, discourse and strategy because someone ought to at least be trying to construct a better vision for all these desperate people. I’m hardly alone in this respect. Greg Johnson has attempted to do so as well.
Joachim advocates reading SIEGE (56:14)
It’s not really necessary because violent accelerationism has been around for decades.
Joachim argues that Tarrant has a better idea of how to save our people (1:00:35)
By this he means the benefits (a few random dead Muslims) outweigh the costs (the people of New Zealand being disarmed)
Joachim celebrates the attention Tarrant received
It was negative attention that was used to paint the 1.0 and 2.0 movements with a toxic brush all over the world, but especially in New Zealand and Australia.
Joachim accuses me of “moral fagging”
Yes, this is proof that Joachim has a warped understanding of morality and makes the point I drove in the previous article.
Joachim claims that “politics isn’t a game.”
IT IS A GAME. IT IS A TEAM SPORT. WE CAN’T AFFORD TO HAVE PEOPLE LASHING OUT IN MELTDOWNS AND SCREWING THE TEAM.
Joachim claims “this is war” because of crime and opioids
What the hell does that have to do with random people just trying to live their lives?
Joachim accuses me of being “afraid to rock the boat”
No, I have sat here and watched these people have these meltdowns for over a decade now and I am just saying that based on my experience of writing about dozens of mass shooters it is an ineffective strategy.
Joachim doesn’t want us to “get in the way”
The whole point of violent accelerationism is to make things so polarized and so toxic that it negatively impacts everyone else in the movement who doesn’t share that retarded worldview. It is a strategy that is designed to harm people who are pro-White, but who disagree with that strategy. Therefore, we shouldn’t “get in the way” of these people.
Joachim claims to want to sink the boat (1:07:45)
If Joachim means our boat through actions which are unwise and imprudent, then I agree he is sinking our boat. He isn’t even scratching the boat of our enemies. He is attacking them at their strongest point in a suicide mission out of nihilistic self destruction which only makes them even stronger because they are entirely capable of dealing with people like that with their narrative
Joachim compares me to Matt Parrott
I wanted to respond to Joachim directly because I felt after listening to the livestream last night that Parrott’s goal was to try to persuade some of these lost people rather than to articulate a moral perspective that I believe has been fudged in the 1.0 and 2.0 movements to our detriment.
Joachim claims that I should defend non-violence
Part of being a Christian is suffering and obeying the law:
“Christ says that we should not resist evil or injustice but always yield, suffer, and let things be taken from us. If you will not bear this law, then lay aside the name of Christian and claim another name that accords with your actions, or else Christ himself will tear his name away from you, and that will be too hard for you.” – Martin Luther
Violence isn’t the prerogative of the aggrieved individual. In our culture, it can only be sanctioned as self defense or as a just war on behalf of the community. The question is closely bound up with that of who is the legitimate sovereign authority in any given area.
Joachim believes we need “ideological purity.”
I would argue the current state of the ideology is at best a half assed work in progress with a long track record of failure.
Joachim attacks having organizations
I don’t see organizations as the problem. In my view, the problem is being isolated and immersed in a coarse, crude, violent and nihilistic discourse while being deracinated and uneducated in the Western moral tradition. The lack of organizations has atomized the movement and made it ungovernable and chaotic. It is actually one of the causes of mass shootings.
Joachim claims he isn’t going to judge any of the crazy people who lash out and engage in violence
Yes, this is a morally bankrupt position. Instead of doing that, we should be discouraging activities which are harmful to us by articulating a moral framework for our people and a compelling moral case for White survival .