Right-wing accelerationism

Deleuze + Guattari are fucking badass. Only read a few pages so far....feel energized from this shiz yo my man.

Fo shizzle.

I’m serious though, the idea of unleashing the desire apparatus seems very powerful.

What exactly do you mean by fascism?

I think it’s the kind of government I’d support but not sure what you mean. Do you mean a government like in 1984 or Brave New World?

As in the brightest motherfuckers running everything in a Scientific way? So difficult to ensure that though, as in most forms of government the dumbfucks eventually take over or the brightest never make it to the top in the first place due to power politics.

why is Nick a bad writer and not able to write good & understandable like me? I thought he was english first language but... apparently not.

Attached: TIRE SOME.jpg (768x768, 86.87K)

Accelerationism glorifies destruction and instability by framing it as creative, and the current system not only as diseased or sickly but as fundamentally and irretrievably rotten.

It is an ideology of extremes that rests on dichotomous thinking, much like Marxism, Fascism, Cromwell's Puritanism, etc.

So it appeals to people who are incapable of thinking of how to heal and stabilize the current state of affairs, and/or are so miserable that the collapse of the existing society is their only hope for upward mobility in the idealized state they imagine would naturally replace it.

He is a good writer, even if he overdoes things. You're just a brainlet.

I wish Yas Forums would talk more about non meme accelerationism. Nick is one of the only reactionaries with a large lefty following, partoally because he takes from Marx (which is why he's a verbose fuck) and partially because nobody has really refuted him in detail yet.

I find his point on instrumental convergence and intelligence interesting. Ultimately the decel and tedfags will fail because technophile societies inevitably displace them. We just have to accept whatever comes out of biotechnology or AI in the next few decades. Nothing is sacred.

Balkanization is totally unnecessary. Political deadlock, dissatisfaction in government and cultural or ideological divide should be resolved with exploring options for autonomy, opening up new ways to move to places that would best suit your lifestyle and then rediscovering our founding principles together.

t.brainlet

how many times are you going to make this thread, nick? dumb pseudo-intellectual commie faggot. you mad that you lost /x/? is that why youre spamming Yas Forums? try to stay on /lgbt/ next time.

The problem with your concept of "healing" is that it's anthropocentric. I don't mean that as a moral critique, I mean that you assume the instabilities in liberal capitalism can only be meaningfully resolved by creating an alternative environment that's more pleasant for us humans. This is not healing, this is stagnation, and any species that wants to dodo-ify itself by shutting out the unpleasant threats of life will find darwinism making a sudden appearance behind locked doors.

Destruction is absolutely creative. It enables the selection that created all life on earth and the revolutions that swept away old societies. If you think the apex of this process is social democracy, or utopianism, or wheatfields, or any system that isn't dynamic, you're basically fucked. Nature is never really tamed.

Mobility is no longer possible in the Technocratic oligarchy of ours. The very rich hold a virtual Monopoly on all value in this society.

Which is why I endorses full-blown GREEN techno-capital acceleration.

The founding principles are a meme. They haven't meant anything since the civil Rights act of the 1960s, and probably since before. You lolberts are living in the past. No one cares about our "founding principles" but the right.

leftist user, what do you think about Carl Schmitt?

> creating an alternative environment that's more pleasant for us humans

Left to our own devides, human beings do this themselves, spontaneously and autonomously. It's only because of the scale and intensity of interference in people's ability to engage in spontaneous action & self organization that the environment we have is not "pleasant" or otherwise functional. The modern capitalist system thrives precisely because of this autonomy and freedom, insofar as it exists, and will even pretend to endorse it to provide itself with a veneer of philosophical consistency, while continuously subverting it through rent seeking, monopolization, government collusion, etc.

Which is to say, the "dynamic" character that you claim is necessary for a society to function always ends up *restricted* in a capitalist society. Not because it threatens the common people but because it threatens the control of established interests.

All correct. And all that the accelerationist agende of intensifying capitalism will do is to strengthen the stranglehold of the merchant aristocracy on the general society.

Carl Schmitt was correct and the left use his ideas often. They just get butthurt when WE use them.

So Propertarianism?

Attached: propertarian.jpg (900x900, 110.54K)

Which is why we need balkanization first.

We were founded with a lot of different religious and cultural groups that wanted to live very different lives. Some how we were able to make it work.
I know we're a lot more diverse now, but this is the one place on Earth with a culture specifically built for self-determination. We have to rediscover the community and venture aspect of building a home among houses.

Attached: 1584393537837.jpg (1024x954, 106.95K)

You're talking about Propretarianism and their definition of 'commons'.

That's by design. This board is filled with so many coomers, zoggers, bots and coofers that rational conversation is scarcely heard. Ackshually early Saturday and Sunday (like now) are better than normal.

It's not clear to me that balkanizing the USA would break the stranglehold of the oligarchy. Europe is "balkanized" and the Germans choose PMs for the Greeks and Italians. The actual Balkans is now a cluster of mafia-states, whereas Yugoslavia resembled a functioning nation-state quite closely.

youre gonna have to dumb that down bud Yas Forums is retarded

>Balkanization is totally unnecessary.
I disagree. The harmony and charm of the commons are the #1 reason that I want balkanization. I would like to live in a state where people share my values: respect of the law, meritocracy, strict punishment of parasitic behavior and a penchant for aesthetics in the commons. You cannot have these values with a diverse population... or at least I've never seen it.

>Which is why I endorses full-blown GREEN techno-capital acceleration.
What does that look like?
Strict restrictions on runaway (((capitalism)))?

Starts with Deleuze.
And by that I mean read a little Freud, Marx, Nietzsche and Spinoza and a little Kant to undersand wtf Deleuze is about.

In that order :

>Ethics by Spinoza, accompanied by a beginner guide I don't know good ones in english I read in French but I think you can find good ones.
>You don't have to read Kant, but at least understand the big points of his philosophy, the noumena/phenomena separation, the goal of his critical philosophy. Wiki and online intros should be enough.
>Same thing with Marx, no need to read the Whole Das Kapital, just read some good intro to it and marxist thought and read some passages of it when you want to deepen your understanding of parts of it.
>Then read Genealogy of morals by Nietzsche, you can read other books, but this one is mandatory.
>No need to understand all psychoanalysis, "5 lectures " by Freud should be enough.
>Then you have all the material to understand Deleuze. Read the Anti-Oedipus, and you should understand most of his concepts.
>Then finally you can enter in Land.

You can't expect to enter in philosophy like a newbie without any experiences in it and get everything. I'm not a fan of the " Start with the greeks " meme but each philosophical book comes from a philosophical tradition, and take most of its concepts and vocabulary from that philosophical tradition. If you don't know at all most authors that influenced the author you read, you will understand nothing.

So, with those lectures you should get what he's about. Also, don't feel bad about people calling you a brainlet. Most of them didn't even read him or didn't understand anything and just liked the "accelerate" memes.

Attached: 48620-0Xr_gXvAuQ1a85LXC8IPjw.jpg (600x400, 44.69K)

>Propertarianism
Glad to see someone else like Curt Doolittle's work.

Curt Doolittle is a glowie that was involved in the color revolution in Ukraine.

I'm fucking ready for him and John Mark to give to word and start executing people. Reciprocity is the only way.

He also challenged me to a fistfight on facebook because I kept calling him an idiot

I can't believe their are people who actually think like you in 2020. Jesus Christ

many were involved how is he a glowie?

Propertarianism was created by the fed Curt Doolittle and is actually too autistic to work.

Well he wants to bring back the duel and if you can keep calling someone and idiot without reason I can see why they would want to settle it as men.

It would because we would purge the ruling class

How is it too autistic? It covers almost all bases better than anything we use presently.

He's an old fucking man and he would get his arse handed to him in a duel. He knows that, he's a pure shit-talker. And an idiot.

Ironically, at the time of writing about Dark Enlightenment, Nick Land who is pictured on the OP's was not a white nationalist or even any typical kind of political person at all. The "Right-wing" in general, including accelerationists, that did understand his writings at the time would not dare touch him with a 10 ft. pole.

Land used to advocate for the "evil" kind of transhumanism. That is, considering Capital with capital C as an emergent effect (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) of which humans are its basic constituents, and then having Capital surpass the need for us by existing as the emergence of other kinds of structures (AI for example). His gig was all about describing how this process was inevitable and already quite developed into fruition. Nowadays he's just a sinophile dad in Shanghai and doesn't give a fuck about these more abstract aspects of philosophy, but his old writings do ring truer as time passes.

For a less schizophrenic rundown of what his brand of accelerationism truly means one just needs to go for Ellul's "The Technological Society" or even Ted's manifesto would do. The Technocrats and Fascists trying to draw human value from the writings of philosophers of technology are drawing from a dangerous source and playing a risky game where they might end up enacting the very policies that will not only end the traditions they cherish but also end the entire system they'd like to live on.

Attached: 74526825_539594540215484_379795309909232192_n.jpg (640x640, 58.94K)