Collapsitarianism, or “accelerationism” as it’s more commonly referred as, is the notion that deep-rooted political, judicial and corporate corruption have gone unchecked for so long, that only the collapse of the government will bring an end to this corruption. The premise is that those responsible can only be stopped with violence, not votes, and that violence against these bad actors can only be committed once the state no longer holds a monopoly on violence.
The YangGang is peak accelerationism, with the intent of crippling the economy by enacting a Universal Basic Income. Most of the proponents of the Yang 2020 meme campaigns don’t actually like Yang, they just want to bring about the economic collapse, while simultaneously moving the Overton Window. While this tactic is risky, it almost seems necessary. What good is voting in a democracy? Democracies are ruled by majorities, and the majority in America is comprised of communists, whose ranks are being perpetually reinforced through the daily import of thousands of immigrants.
And before “but it’s a Republic,” no, it’s not. It was once a Constitutional Democratic-Republic. Now it’s a democracy with the illusion of Republic leanings.
When California, New York and Illinois control the House of Representatives due to their enormous populations, what you have is a direct democracy — rule by the majority. The Electoral College means nothing if every legislative decision is made by three states that are quickly evolving into their own miniature nation states. The Senate was based upon the Roman Senate, a representative body in Ancient Rome’s Republic. Every state gets just two Senators, allowing for equal say. The House of Representatives could be more accurately described as arising from the democratic states of Ancient Greece. The number of seats in the House is determined by the population size within designated districts. Hence, we had a democratic-republic, bound by laws laid out in our own versions of the Magna Carta: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Personally, I believe an armed uprising could be achieved before bringing about an economic collapse. I’m sure peaceful secessionists have their own thoughts on the matter, but I have just one question for the secessionist movement. When in America’s history have leftists ever allowed peaceful secession? They won’t even let us rally in peace, and secessionists think they’ll be allowed to organize entire states into red-only zones. The red/blue divide is very real, but it also exists within the states, not just between them. In the event that a cleavage between the two political and cultural halves of America started, this divide would become increasingly unstable within the states themselves. It’s not that I disagree with the idea of secession itself, it’s that I disagree with the means of achieving it. Let me clear, I’m all for secession, by force.
Of course, anytime someone mentions the possibility of an armed uprising, they are inevitably rebuked with the tired trope “like a civilian with a rifle stands any chance against tanks and drones.” Actually, he does. Just ask the Taliban, the mujh’deen, or the Founding Fathers. Organized armies are trained and equipped for fighting other organized armies, they find themselves at a great disadvantage when fighting people, particularly when those people are hard to differentiate from non-combatants. Insurgencies by militias and rebels are very difficult for armies to combat, which is why, historically, most counter-insurgencies have failed miserably.
Fourth Generation Warfare describes any war fought between a state actor and a non-state actor. 4GW is fought asymmetrically, and the only units capable of asymmetric warfare are small guerrilla outfits. You simply cannot achieve the dynamic nature of 4GW with a cumbersome regiment-sized force of men and vehicles. It’s not feasible from a logistics standpoint.
The US-led Coalition Forces in Afghanistan were defeated time and time again by the enemy, because he had the advantage of conducting an ambush, then melting away into the civilian population. Marines and Soldiers in theater were severely limited in their ability to field an appropriate counter-attack, as they couldn’t risk accidentally killing non-combatants. Not only would this make them subject to criminal liability, it would only strengthen the insurgency. With every civilian accidentally killed, several of their friends and relatives would join the Taliban. Every time the US military would field some new technology, like the Coyote wideband radio frequency jammer, the Taliban would go low-tech, adapting their IED’s detonators from cellphones and radios to mechanical devices triggered by weight, or wind-up timers scrounged from household appliances.
The weapons of war are leveled in 4GW. There is decimating aerial warfare conducted by drones, but also the role of computer hacking, kidnapping and other so-called “unsavory” activities. The point of 4GW, from the perspective of the insurgent, is less about “winning” in the popular sense, and more about dragging out the conflict as long as possible, demoralizing and crippling the enemy with a death by 1,000 cuts. The Taliban had a saying about the “superior” US-led counter-insurgency, “You have the watches, but we have the time.”
An insurgency only has to outlast the occupation, defeating the occupiers’ resolve by making the cost of occupation (in blood and dollars) greater than the shame of defeat.