Egregoros

The Greeks lost Rome in 476AD. What had been the Western Empire fell into a dark age for over a century.

The Soviet Collapse comprised the end of social safety nets that some 10% of the genpop had depended upon to survive (mostly elderly/infirm).

In neither case were these absolute chaos breaking out everywhere all of a sudden - that’s not the only meaning of “civilizational collapse” though.

The West collapsed in 2008, resulting in the Global Financial Crisis; and while it was pretty wild in some ways, I wasn’t exactly seizing fuel deliveries to gas up my Hilux with the roof-mounted .50 cal. But we did show up in the middle of town with literal torches and pitchforks; that was fun.

You see, absolutely nothing collapsed in 2008. I spent that year playing halo 3 and studying. I couldn't get a job despite doing a lot of applications but on a civilization level it was chill. A little peasant revolt (or just protest) like you participated in does not a collapse make. If you want to see real collapses in the relatively recent past you have to look at post colonial Africa. They really don't exist anywhere else.

I will say that the fall of the western Roman empire is an exception. But not something to hope for and a truly rare historical event long in the making. America will just become a favela pocked shithole long LONG before it actually "collapses"

Yeah one could argue it started at the end of WWII. But what defined 2008’s collapse was that *zero* States worldwide would/could act on behalf of White People, at all. “Citizenship” of a White Man in a formerly White country lost any and all meaning - no longer was it possible anywhere for Whites to secure *any* State-level representation. This set the stage for the infiltration and subversion of the Occupy Movement - which proved that we’d no longer be permitted to promote our own ethnic interests in our homelands, whatsoever.

My point is that you're not getting an accurate view of the political landscape by what you see online since the incentive structure heavily disincentivizes frank discourse of that nature.

And I don't begrudge people "doing nothing" because "doing useful things" is difficult. There's an incredibly high barrier to entry when it comes to forming a guerrilla force with the strength to topple the American government

But that doesn't mean it's not the right solution

Exactly this. It's cowardice and impotence disguised as being an epic badass radical.

If these people were serious about "No PoLiTiCaL sOlUtIoN", they would absolutely never talk about it on the internet. If they were competent on top of that, they'd do what every effective revolutionary force has done and build out or co-opt an ostensibly legal organization, using it as cover to prepare for all eventualities.

These people don't want to fight a civil war, though. That would be terrifying for them. They aren't in shape, they're terrified of dying, and they're sufficiently socially inept that nobody capable would want to associate with them. They want the same things the average boomer Democrat wants - to stick around under a declining system that lets them live comfortably enough and, at all costs, avoid being marked as a threat to its power.

Thus, they make it painstakingly clear that their role is not just to avoid doing anything at all, it's to try to demoralize and divide the system's enemies as much as they can, so that the system will view them as useful at best and entertaining at worst, but never as a threat or an enemy.