Response to Joachim Hoch

Editor’s Note: This is a work in progress.

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.

Challenge accepted.

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 disagree.

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.