Accelerationism

[Anonymous No.14420640]

Is accelerationism dead already?
Or even worth getting into now?

[Anonymous No.14420658]

>>14420640
Dashed hopes and dead dreams, bad, worse, worst, worsted. Accelerationism is dead! Long live Jerk, and then Pop, and then we will come up with a suitable name for the fifth time derivative!

[Anonymous No.14420661]

no matter how many times i see these threads i never understand what you discord zoomers mean by accelerationism. do you mean the actual critical theory behind it, or the real theory that this "critical" theory is parasitic on, or the writings of specific kooks like land which are sometimes interesting but more often wank pieces? or do you mean the twitter blogposts of some transgender cosplayer?

why don't you articulate what you actually mean by accelerationism before identifying with it as some kind of "movement"?

i feel like if i saw firsthand how zoomers operate i would probably start vomiting in despair, like if i saw up close and personal the real-time transformation of a zoomer as he initiates into some "internet movement," and learned that what this actually means is he browsed around discord chatrooms while alt+tabbed from twitch streams and listened to midwits babble about wikipedia summaries they read, i would have an existential crisis. i don't think i'm ready to learn just how stupid and cognitively diluted the new generation of young people is.

[Anonymous No.14420696]

>>14420661
>kids these days are reading theory and talking about the transcendental dialectic rather than doing drugs and fucking each other, makes me fucking sick to my stomach
okay boomer

[Anonymous No.14420698]

>>14420661
t.le wrong generation zoomer

[Anonymous No.14420704]

Is accelerationism a right wing ideology? Genuinely don't know i see Land posted all the time but most of the stuff people talk about is vague.

[Anonymous No.14420708]

>>14420661
Is Land not basically the one who originated the whole thing? I thought it was all based on his take on DaG

[Anonymous No.14420720]

>>14420696
i actually read theory and i actually read both transcendental philosophy and hegel, marx, and even hermeneutic dialectics and i have not seen a single line of philosophy from these threads other than from girardfag, who has the problem of mixing it all together to produce an aesthetic rather than actually using it conceptually, but at least he fucking reads the shit

this is exactly what i mean, you've substituted buzzwords like "transcendental dialectic" for actually reading philosophy. do you even know what either of these terms mean? do you even have an explanation for your idiosyncratic coupling of them? what "theory" do you read, then?

the false dichotomy you present is retarded, and only shows how sloppy you are at conceptual thought, which is real evidence for how little philosophy you've read. philosophy is initiatic and teaches you how to think by teaching you how to assimilate the architectonics (i know you'll have to google this, guy who uses the term "transcendental" as if he knows what it means) of authors, which are based on conceptual distinctions. instead what you've done is lazily and vaguely assimilated that you sorta-like something that sorta-resembles what deleuze seems to sorta-resemble in your mind, which is a vague mixture of tropes and aesthetics and half-formed and half-expressed ideas like "PROCESS." if you had actually spent this time learning how to read philosophy, by reading philosophy, you wouldn't have replied with such a sloppy argument. if i say "x is bad," and you reply with "not-x, which i here define as taking it up the ass and shooting heroin into your eyeballs, is surely worse!" whoa! guess i have to subscribe to x then! that is, if my brain doesn't work, like yours!

[Anonymous No.14420723]

>>14420640
Getting into? Getting into how? Getting into what? What exactly do you think you're going to do?

[Anonymous No.14420728]

>>14420704
>>14420708
no and no, not even close

[Anonymous No.14420734]

>>14420698
t. phoneposter who larps as a ghost in the shell character on the internet

>>14420708
that is exactly what i'm asking, because there are many uses of "acceleration." the sad thing is, these people don't even know themselves what they mean by it.

[Anonymous No.14420745]

>>14420658
it goes acceleration, jerk, snap, crackle, pop

[Anonymous No.14420754]

>>14420728
Why does this pop journal call him a neofascist? Sorry for phonepost

[Anonymous No.14420759]

>>14420745
fuck well dont tell them that they dont know better

[Anonymous No.14420761]

>>14420728
>>14420734
The Wikipedia page lists Land as a prominent theorist and says that it sort of started with the CCRU which he was a part of.

[Anonymous No.14420766]

It seems a lot of people are confused about accelerationism. I think it is clarifying to apply the exoteric/esoteric distinction.

Accelism has an exoteric and esoteric facet. Exoterically it is a Kantian transcendental account of Capital. Esoterically it is a sissification death-cult; reading Fanged Noumena is equivalent to casting a spell on yourself trapping you in sissification machinic runaway, also known as an autogynephilic singularity.

I recommend reading https://nyxus.xyz/posts/theorypunk-afterword/ to understand the sissy hypnosis side of it (called "the process" in the article).

>Even Nick Land himself couldn't throw himself so deep into the machinery that he died, though he went further than any of us. Unlike you, old man, I don't fear death. The process isn't done with me, and will continue to exert its power through this meat host until it can withstand no more. It is perhaps part of the teleology of the meat that it must accelerate itself into an early grave, affirming θέλημα and Αγαπη to the point of self-destruction. All I can hope for is that it finishes quickly.

[Anonymous No.14420773]

>>14420720
the transcendental dialectic is Kant's rejection of metaphysica generalis (ontology, the study of being in-itself) by the assertion that any metaphysics must by its nature already be dialectical. he also uses the trancendental aestetic and analytic to dunk on mathematics and science. Kant is really useful to help understand Nick Land because Nick Land was a Kantian scholar before he went off the rails. do you want to talk about the trancendetal aspects of accelerationism or do you just want to ree about zoomers?

[Anonymous No.14420779]

>>14420640
Land has said nearly everything he can, and there is a superficial aesthetic to accompany his theorising for every taste. Are you a fascist, a commie, a liberal, apolitical, a tranny? Well step right up because we have an acclerationism that is sure to suit you! Within all these little communities of accelerationism, which are, again, primarily aesthetic configurations tangentially related to Land's theorising, you will now find nothing but exhaustion. Even Land, no longer being able to produce anything novel and maintain escape velocity, has been subsumed and captured by superficial orbital subcultures surrounding his own ideas.

If accelerationism is fundamentally diagnostic and a theory of time then it can be left to its own devices to play out on its own accord. Even if the theory is correct, and in this sense not superficial, there is no engagement you can have with the theory that isn't superficial because of this.

[Anonymous No.14420790]

>>14420754
Because land has his own niche brand of accelerationism but the actual term is much less specific and can go hand in hand anywhere on the political spectrum if you take enough LSD

[Anonymous No.14420795]

>>14420723
In my case, writing a thesis on the whole thing. Which means I don't have a good grasp of what the term actually means yet, I just know it's (been) pretty in vogue lately, and, considering this, it will probably be used in the future to describe a "movement" or "critical theory" that one can pinpoint as having existed between the 90s and 2010s.

I know that Acc is pretty wacky, but identifying the wacky bits adds to the fun.

[Anonymous No.14420808]

>>14420754
Probably because of his essay on Mencius Moldbug and Neoreaction, "The Dark Enlightenment"

[Anonymous No.14420812]

>>14420779
im a luddite can i have one too

[Anonymous No.14420817]

>>14420779
unironically the first good critique of accelerationism I have read in one of these threads and I am an accelerationist. I think the theory as critique still could be expanded but I am deeply skeptical of accelerationists changing the process through this form of engagement, hence everyone larping as some political radical or another

[Anonymous No.14420824]

>>14420761
And? They asked it started with nick land and if acc is right wing, respectively, both are patently “no”. It did not start with nick land, not close (if you read #accelerate you’ll quickly see this). And r/acc is just a small branch of acc that barely has anything to do with the original (or even current, popular) use of the word. Imo Nick land got a spot because he has a growing following and it’s hard to refute something you don’t understand

[Anonymous No.14420825]

>>14420773
frankly i'm surprised you actually replied this ingenuously since what you're saying reveals you've never read kant.

do you actually know how kant uses the term "dialectic," for example in entire fucking second part of the first critique? what do you mean, he "dunks on" mathematics and science? the transcendental aesthetic controversially justifies mathematical apriorism against humean scepticism by grounding it IN the faculty of intuition, and the analytic does the same for the certainty of synthetic apriori judgements. essentially the whole thing is one giant justification of newtonian mechanics and the possibility of positing determinate rational relations in nature.

frankly i have no idea where you are getting your conception that kant thinks "any metaphysics of nature must be dialectical." are you mistaking kant's sense of dialectical from the transcendental dialectic with a sense of metaphysical dialectic drawn from the schellingean naturphilosophe and hegelian absolute idealism?

there's nothing wrong with being interested in these things but you should use them as a spur to go and actually read kant. don't instrumentalize the reading of kant as a preliminary to some fucking shallow internet movement that draws 90% of its ideas from digests. this is the same as the OOO shit, and OOO was blown the fuck out for messing up extremely basic points of knowledge, because they didn't actually read kant. kant is not particularly difficult.

[Anonymous No.14420828]

>>14420754
Because Nick Land is known for advocating for a powerful centralised government to reign in and direct capital toward supporting a robust welfare-state to the benefit and development of an ethnohomogeneous community.

[Anonymous No.14420830]

>>14420808
Which is dumb. Land's own attempt to synthesize NRx with his other philosophy is so dumb that most people aren't even aware of what it is(the autonomous intelligent republican rock-paper-scissors memery).

He clearly understood and liked what Moldbug was saying, but it's really a separate topic to accelerationism.

[Anonymous No.14420834]

acc as far as I can tell is descriptive, not prescriptive
am I missing something here? why are people posting about acc as if it's some sort of prescription about how your personal politics are supposed to function?

[Anonymous No.14420842]

>>14420824
Who did it start with then? The only other people on the page mentioned are Sadie Plant and Mark Fisher. Before that it's just DaG and Marx who are influences rather than really part of it.

[Anonymous No.14420843]

>>14420720
>i actually read theory
>trancendental dialectic
>buzzword
>your idiosyncratic coupling of them
Reminder anti-acc fags STILL haven't read the first critique

[Anonymous No.14420859]

>>14420812
Yes, it is/was called deaccelerationism or d/acc and it was spawned by Nick posting in agreement with the unabomber but including the addendum "but thats a good thing" to his writings.

[Anonymous No.14420860]

>>14420704
It’s largely outside of the mundane Oy political, but by simply accepting the validity of superior forms of power it is labeled a rightist creed
Tbh most people who want to break things down into a right/left dichotomy are pretty simple minded and ought to be disregarded

[Anonymous No.14420864]

>>14420842
as far as i can tell, "accelerationists" have a realyl bad reading of deleuze and guattari as well, more at home in a comp lit or media studies department, or in the mind of some dilettante female graduate student interested only in its aesthetic, than in philosophy. deleuze especially, but also guattari in his collaborations with deleuze, is a mediocre genetic phenomenologist. all the fancy metaphors boil down to a fairly simple phenomenological theory of constitution. merleau-ponty does more with less.

>>14420843
whoa dude, you've really challenged me to a First Critique-Off here! it's a good thing you can so easily deliver the coup de grace and blow me the fuck out by explaining what the term "transcendental dialectic" means! that's kant 101, so it should be child's play for you, right?

then we can all see how its use in this way, in kant, is conducive to anything like accelerationism. again, since you know kant so well you should be able to lay it out in two sentences.

[Anonymous No.14420884]

>>14420842
that Marx quote on the wiki is patently accelerationism; he even described it as acceleration, and it’s been discussed by Marxist theorists since. If you’re wondering who first used the label, I think that was only coined like a decade ago by some dude named Ben, in what context I have no idea

[Anonymous No.14420886]

>>14420825
I guess you are suspicious of speculative realism as well then.
Any take on Ray Brassier?

[Anonymous No.14420897]

>>14420859
Nick's perspective seems to be that it's completely inevitable and also bad for humanity but it's good from an abstract perspective of intelligence maximization.

[Anonymous No.14420919]

>>14420825
>what you're saying reveals you've never read kant
since you skipped the chapter on the transcendental dialectic, I think you have lost your posturing privilege anon. I just gave a super vanilla rundown of the theory, one you could find on any philosophic encyclopedia. in fact, the statement you are upset about is reproduced almost verbatim on the Stanford encyclopedia:
>The answer to question three [How are the synthetic a priori propositions of metaphysics possible?] is found in the Transcendental Dialectic, and it is a resoundingly blunt conclusion: the synthetic a priori propositions that characterize metaphysics are not really possible at all. Metaphysics, that is, is inherently dialectical.
Maybe you disagree with Kant scholarship in general, but you are acting like this is some bizzare reading you have never heard before, rather than what they teach in undergrad metaphysics classrooms. I don't know what to say anon, since your problem isn't really with my take (i.e. the way Kant has been read for like a century) but more with Kant's critique in general.

[Anonymous No.14420926]

>>14420864
>that's kant 101
Just a half hour ago it was a buzzword and an idiosyncrasy coupling of two unrelated terms, now it's Kant 101? Why the change of heart anon? Did you try googling the thing you were talking about?

[Anonymous No.14420935]

>>14420884
Who do you associate it with then? It seems like it only came to be a real thing in the 90s, with there being influences in earlier writers.

[Anonymous No.14420955]

>>14420886
i've met people IRL who were "really into" speculative realism and they're always wannabe burnouts who aren't interested in real philosophy. again, they are just interested in the aesthetic. obviously that doesn't somehow prove that it's bad, but it admittedly gave me some bad associations.

i've only read bits of OOO related theory and looked into some of the critiques of it, which included the fact that many of its adherents had clearly never read kant, but had in fact read some kind of digest version of kant that was embarrassingly wrong and took him for something between kant and a berkeleyan idealist. the other problems i saw with it were its, frankly, just outright incorrect appropriations of heidegger's middle/1930s essays (incidentally: the easy short exciting ones everybody reads in humanities undergrad, just saying) to do things that were either very dumb, or that baudrillard already did better and with actual awareness of the philosophical stakes (re: departing from kant/hegel) in his earliest work.

long story short, whenever they would get close to saying something i could at least recognise as a real position, they would swerve by saying something weirdly stupid, and i didn't know whether this was a consciously subversive appropriation of heidegger e.g. or whether they just really hadn't read heidegger.

brassier himself i read a bit of when people linked some of his essays on /lit/. he writes deliberately badly, and not in a cool way where he's doing sleight of hand tricks for the initiated, but in a lame way where anybody who actually knows what he's talking about would instantly be embarrassed for him. some of what he was saying did show real understanding, but it was buried in shit like this.

>>14420919
>Uhhhh the account I just gave is actually super mainstream and everyone knows it? So you're wrong not me?
ok good, 95% of your post is chaff and i can get right to the part where you show how stupid you are, a point which also conveniently reveals how little kant you've read. and as a bonus, that you (and whoever you are parroting from your discord right now) have only read snippets of a stanford encyclopaedia article.

>Metaphysics, that is, is inherently dialectical.
yes, dialectical in the KANTIAN SENSE, as i said above: "are you mistaking kant's sense of 'dialectical' from the transcendental dialectic with a sense of metaphysical dialectic drawn from schellingean naturphilosophie and hegelian absolute idealism?"

but you are right, i unfairly assumed that you were using "dialectic" in a post-critical sense with "transcendental" in a kantian sense, which is why i asked you to explain what you really mean by it. i shouldn't have assumed, i should have asked. so i'm still asking: what do you mean by transcendental dialectic in an "accelerationist" context?

>>14420926
"The Transcendental Dialectic" in the first critique has a very specific meaning and is kant 101, yes. see above.

[Anonymous No.14420965]

>>14420834

[Anonymous No.14420973]

For me it's an excuse to consume and produce Lain aesthetic media and reads German Idealist works. It comes with an online community of likeminded "intellectuals." And I use the word extremely loose broadly here, I just mean people who do stuff (writing, math, etc.) instead of just watching animu and masturbating. Maybe even people who admit to change their minds.
I'd like to see Lands idea of Capital extended to other currents and cultures and discuss it in a sense that applies to cultural currents as well. I've not read Lands work from last year, crypto currents, but I think it has some cool perspectives.

[Anonymous No.14420979]

>>14420640
Is acceleration related to the commodification of everything?

[Anonymous No.14420980]

>>14420704
No

[Anonymous No.14421018]

>>14420834
>acc is descriptive
no acc is classically a prescribing of 10cc’s of capitalism to capitalism STAT so that it dies in its sleep. Wholly prescriptive. Even the first use of the concept was this

[Anonymous No.14421026]

>>14420979
I'm not versed enough in the matter, but I would say that accelerationism is a theory of time and capital.
If you're more interested in the "commodification of everything", I'd suggest Baudrillard's Consumer Society.

[Anonymous No.14421031]

>>14420955
kek you are acting like I fucked your mother by mentioning the transcendental dialectic. if you would have been a little less emotional with your knee jerk response, you might have noticed that I was making a joke about zoomers reading theory and talking about Kant; it had literally nothing to do with the relationship between accelerationism and the trancendental dialectic. you were the one who brought up acc in relation to my joke, and so I even asked you if you wanted to talk about acc in relation to transcendental philosophy, and instead you doubled down on your autism trying to make me defend some point I never even made. did you not get what you wanted for Christmas or something?

[Anonymous No.14421034]

>>14421018
Well, isn't unconditional accelerationism 'not prescriptive' by definition?

[Anonymous No.14421054]

>>14420935
I didn’t even know who nick land was when I first heard and used the term accelerationism. Most normies just think of it like that subreddit “malicious compliance” where lefties say “ok if you insist!” and then let “””late stage capitalism””” collapse on itself. Pretty sure most people use the term in this manner, which is not at all Land’s theory.

[Anonymous No.14421065]

>>14421034
all the /acc's are prescriptive, the letter is indicative of some sort of prescriptive position

[Anonymous No.14421086]

>>14421065
So u/acc's prescription would be "do what thou wilt". Okay, that's one way of looking at it.

[Anonymous No.14421087]

>>14421054
So which writers do you associate it with, or do you just mean Marx

[Anonymous No.14421103]

>>14421086
probably something more like "do what thy process wilt"

[Anonymous No.14421115]

>>14421034
Yes it is I agree, it’s a reframing of accelerationism. You’re right-ish my bad. It’s a subset of accelerationism as I recall so the term itself can be prescriptive or descriptive

[Anonymous No.14421125]

>>14421031
if you were joking and you admit you have never read kant that's fine, but it just makes me disappointed because i wanted to ask an accelerationist how they appropriate kant.

rest of your post is chaff. if you weren't joking though, seriously: you don't know what "dialectic" means. conceptual distinctions are important like i said. instead of ctrl+fing the stanford encyclopaedia article, read kant some time.

rest of your post is babbling "kek get dabbed on dunked based epic lmao u mad" so not worth replying, but seriously, actually read kant some time if you weren't joking.

[Anonymous No.14421132]

>>14420640
Why doesn't he support woke capital? This seems like the real accelerationist position to me. It is the front line of capital's quest to remake man into a more perfect conduit of its power.

[Anonymous No.14421135]

absolutely retarded worldview about giving your enemies power so you can live out a dystopian fantasy.

The right benefits from not accelerating. They have a window to form safe havens and organize to counter decades of leftist media indoctrination. Fucking stupid ideology used to rationalize the suicidal idealization of incels

also neoreaction is a stupid, dead ideology

[Anonymous No.14421168]

>>14421132
Woke capital denies IQ, HBD, and carries a strain of welfarism with it and is all round anti-empirical.

[Anonymous No.14421180]

>>14421087
Marx, Benjamin, Commie subredditors, Land, nobody in particular; I don’t remember which anon you are, the one that asked if it started with Land? My reply was “no not even close”. If you’re referring to the concept it started over a century before Land, if you’re referring to the terminology is was coined decades after Land by a guy named Benjamin to describe a particular political position (the same one described by Marx) that he rejected . So either way it did not start with land, and who a concept started with is not mutually inclusive with the most memorable contributors to the concept

Also as I said if you read #acc there’s plenty of other acc literature that existed long before

[Anonymous No.14421213]

>>14421135
>The right benefits from not accelerating. They have a window to form safe havens and organize to counter decades of leftist media indoctrination. Fucking stupid ideology used to rationalize the suicidal idealization of incels

Really not sure that this is the case. Tendency among the (non-groyper) dissident right over the past year or so has been nazbol/strasserism, so there's interest in dismantling large capital
I agree that acc is kinda cope though

[Anonymous No.14421224]

>>14421125
I asked if you wanted to talk about that! twice now! but you literally can't stop posturing. Nick Land is writing a book on bitcoin and its relation to Kant notion of space and time. there is a youtube channel that put out like a 40 min video on Kant in a series about accelerationism a couple months ago. there is tons to talk about here if you would just stop jerking yourself off. Kant isn't some super difficult ultra rare philosophy, he is literally one of the first people you are introduced to in a philosophy program lmao he is introductory material

[Anonymous No.14421230]

>>14421132
>>14421168
Wtf is woke capital anyway? Are you guys referring to the New York Times op-ed? I genuinely don't know what you are talking about, despite the number of times I've come across the term.

[Anonymous No.14421238]

>>14421180
You still haven't named anyone before the CCRU that isn't Marx or DaG

[Anonymous No.14421266]

>>14421238
I think he's referring to all those thinkers in the first parts of #Accelerate.
But I think you're right. They might be sources for contemporary accelerationism, that doesn't make them accelerationists.

[Anonymous No.14421275]

>>14421224
Link to the vid?

[Anonymous No.14421297]

>>14421224
>massive paragraph talking about how nick land mentioned kant once and how easy it is to understand kant
>doesn't demonstrate that he knows what "transcendental dialectic" means in an accelerationist context

why are you doing this to me? is this because kant BTFO science and mathematics and you put it in your cringe compilation of epic fails? does your brain only think in youtube vlog replies and tweets, or are you capable of describing something yourself in plain text too?

[Anonymous No.14421328]

>>14421297
>still hinging my interpretation of Kant on having me defend a point I never made
it's all so tiring

[Anonymous No.14421343]

>>14421230
https://youtu.be/Z6bLq4466LM

[Anonymous No.14421363]

>>14421343
Is that a gender transition pic?

[Anonymous No.14421370]

>>14421363
yes.

[The Based God No.14421384]

>>14420773
didnt read Kant and its evident to everyone, pathetic

[Anonymous No.14421403]

>>14421363
https://youtu.be/lrOVKHg_PJQ

[Anonymous No.14421676]

>>14421168
>Woke capital denies IQ, HBD, and carries a strain of welfarism
What do these things have to do with approaching singularity? These sound like petty human concerns. And accelerationist should be closer to an engineer than a preist. Whatever methods necessary to get to the desired outcome. Welfare is a tool of capital, race shit interferes with capitals ability to make humanity a pure liquid commodity.

[Anonymous No.14421955]

I am just really glad Kant is getting the spotlight again and we are leaving the memers from the 20th century behind as the useful sidenotes they are.

[Anonymous No.14421989]

>>14420640
It was ruined by tranny pseuds desperatly trying to mimic the prose of Meltdown.

[Anonymous No.14422038]

>>14421135
Retard. Demographics are fucked, and the later anything happens, the worse it gets for Whites.

[Anonymous No.14422139]

>>14421213
there are two independent lineages at this point. The Amnats and the wiggers. Wiggers will stim out independent of whether the environment is favourable or not. The Amnats have been gaining impressive support and follower counters which would be impossible in an environment not permissive. Friendly ecelebs simply wouldn't exist if the state were leftists, the censorship would be appalling. Ditto for the rest. It is only because of populism that right wing nationalism has become a talking point in the past 4 years at all

[Anonymous No.14423214]

>>14422038
mobilization and getting the message out matters you dimwit, all the great freak-outs that have raised white consciousness came from conservative shows of political strength. Accelerating is to give your enemies a motive and a weapon against you because you don't want to live

[Anonymous No.14423237]

>>14423214
Yeah, because the message is getting out so well that Trump is ZOG and that things really aren’t getting better. You’re so naive. Read Spengler and listen to Bowden.

[Anonymous No.14423283]

>>14423237
>read spengler!
>quack pseudohistory recommended by a pretentious faggot

by contrast, more whites turn nationalist year by year. The fuck outta here tranny, Trump is a symbol

[Anonymous No.14423394]

>>14421989
only true if serial experiments lain fanfiction

[Anonymous No.14423453]

>>14423283
>reddit spacing
kys nigger. You’re obviously not part of the true right and are being completely disingenuous in rhetoric. Either that, or you really don’t understand how retarded your position is. McNationalism isn’t going to save this nation. Fucking dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14423461]

Okay so it seems the thread has veered into talking about pseudo-accelerationism or deceleration. Reading Siege isn't getting you guys closer to achieving your ethnostate.

[Anonymous No.14423481]

>>14423461
stfu no one cares what you think

[Anonymous No.14423486]

>>14421676
This is why Land is against them lol. Welfarenets are dysgenic, they reward failure or in Landian jargon place a buffer between an action and its feedback. The whole Landian program is about tightening feedback loops, he takes from Marx the idea of Capital as positive feedback, so anything that diffuses consequences is seen a deccelerator.

Land wants people who need welfare to dieout, they are a burden. He also doesn't care about race, but he does care about IQ. In the short term, while we have the kind of government we have, race is important because of its implications on average IQ of a nation. Lands ideal state, a kind of eugenic hyper-Singapore, would be selecting people for citizenship based on their intelligence and race would not be a concern. But as this system is not yet in place, race works as a less high fidelity sorting mechanism until such a time.

[Anonymous No.14423497]

>>14420720
goddamn /lit/ is such fucking trash now

[Anonymous No.14423519]

>>14423486
This is also why everyone shits their pants when the realize the deep right is the voice of this philosophy. The deep left is the antithesis. Synthesis will be NazBol. Remember this post.

[Anonymous No.14423600]

>>14420640

[Anonymous No.14423678]

>>14420661
>>14420824
>>14420935
>>14420704
>>14420640

Accelerationism is taking seriously the idea that capitalism has a functioning that will lead to its own collapse. This is most powerfully described in Marx and Nick Land, with the term being specifically associated with Nick.

In Marx, this functioning is described as (hegelian-style) internal contradictions. So, for instance, there is
1. a systematic need to have people spend money and generate capital
2. there is also a systematic need to pay people low wages and keep them in a cycle of consumption, ie, reduce the money they have to spend.
both of these are needed to exist simultaenously to keep capitalism alive, and this is supposedly inherently unsustainable.

In Land, this is described more like a feedback loop of runaway (deleuzian) desires.
To give an example: consider someone with a extreme sexual fetish. They didn't decide using their free will, it's just that their sexual desires slowly but surely positively reinforced them to a point where they NEED to be tied up, whipped and have hot turds shoved down their throat by fur-mommy.

Likewise, our desires have been stoked by capitalism so much that we have created external machines that powerfully manage our desires and behaviour. Examples of this includes stuff like, personalized ads, algorithmic trading, statistics/data that determine gov action, social networks which tell us who is doing well, the way organizations structure themselves naturally, and so on.
Since there are countless things external to mostly everyone that determine our desires and behaviors, this will inevitably overreach itself and lead capitalism to collapse.

The final piece of accelerationism is that these contradictions or runaway external desires are i n e v i t a b l e, so the best course of action is to a c c e l e r a t e this inevitability. Which means: support the right wing (which u as a leftist think will ruin society), support hedonism and consumerism, etc etc.

Personally, I think this is largely just suicidal nihilistic prophesying, but there is certainly something to learn from this line of thought

[Anonymous No.14423698]

>>14423678
*****contradictions or runaway external desires are i n e v i t a b l y going to collapse capitalism

[Anonymous No.14423705]

>>14423678
land doesn't think capitalism is going to collapse

[Anonymous No.14423723]

>>14423705
go on

[Anonymous No.14423836]

>>14421224
>>14421275
seconding this.

[Anonymous No.14423849]

>>14423723
The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip.

[Anonymous No.14423880]

>>14420720
based

[Anonymous No.14423893]

>>14423849
>techno-economic activity crumbles social order
>politics modernizes
this seems exactly like what a movement away from capitalist social order would look like

[Anonymous No.14423898]

>>14423849

whats up nick

[Anonymous No.14423980]

>>14423893
no you dont get it
capitalism is the move away from social order. capitalism IS the revolution, it is the end, death.
thats why moving "away from capitalism" literally doesnt make any sense. capitalism is what decays all relations and norms. thats why racism and or sexual minority struggles are so easily co opted by capitalism. they are no threat to capitalism. they are in some sense, capitalist.

this is why so many of the people who tend to see themselves as anti capitalist or wanting to move away from capitalism (especially internet socialists) are not actually anti capitalists. these people are ignorant of how pro capitalist they actually are and how in their own terms "problematic" a move away form capitalism might actually be.

that is because yes, while capitalism is absolutely brutal and mindless it also is what creates the space for nearly all social movements in the first place. the are all endorsed in some sense by capital. to be against capitalism is also by extension to be against these social movements.

then there is also the other point, which is that many of these "socialists" really just want hyper effective capitalism and make no serious attempt at critiquing industrial society or alienation (fully automated luxury gay space communism or early 20th century style industrial democracy).

interestingly enough, this is why in the real world we see the only real "anti capitalists" (though they do not see themselves as such) are the reactionaries. they are the only ones who are against these social movements. the """anti capitalists""" who live in the cities are essentially milquetoast liberals who bend to the will of capital whenever one of its social movements is threatened.

[Anonymous No.14424015]

>>14421275
>>14423836
he probably means this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzKKEZ7X9rY

[Anonymous No.14424241]

>>14423678

>The final piece of accelerationism is that these contradictions or runaway external desires are i n e v i t a b l e, so the best course of action is to a c c e l e r a t e this inevitability. Which means: support the right wing (which u as a leftist think will ruin society), support hedonism and consumerism, etc etc.

WARNING: my mans has no fucking idea what the hell he is talking about. disregard this entire post and go actually read core texts!

[Anonymous No.14424305]

Accelerate my dick in to a hot white girls asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot asian girls asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot latina's asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot black girls asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot half white half asian girls asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot half white half latina girls asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot half white half black girls asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot half asian half black girls asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot half asian half latina girls asshole
Accelerate my dick in to a hot half black half latina girls asshole

[Anonymous No.14424467]

Hey you fucking literature board faggots, your boy just cashed in a quarter bitcoin to pay for another night of Thai ladyboys – the good kind. Oh, you think neoChina is for the likes of you? Come on pal, how many times have you read Fanged Noumena? Once? Twice? That book is for faggots you fucking faggots read Eugen Böhm Ritter von Bawerk and Moldbugs latest blog post, maybe you can break a speed limit for once in your life. I've been living on the Outside for nearly 4 years, I've attended over 200 EDM festivals (seen Aphex Twin twice), gone through 7 speed plugs (buying in qp's now), and oh yeah, did I mention the ladyboys? I bet you faggots haven't snorted so much as Ritalin off an erect feminine penis let alone the sort of designer amphetamines I'm snorting tonight, and Sheba is hard as diamonds right now so you know what my plans are. I saw a homeless guy last night begging for cash so I made him try and read A zIIgothIc–==X=coDA==–(CookIng–lobsteRs– wIth–jAke–AnD–DInos) and when he can't do it me and my friends called him a slow-slug and threw ammonia on him then called him a stupid faggot. That's the kind of shit I get off on. I like going fast, and this fucking board is slow, which is why I you LARPERS will never achieve levels of speed like this; I've taken to slicking my hair back to help emphasize the momentum. Me and Nick Land discuss important political issues on twitter REGULARLY. I can hear you whining already, but there's no need in replying, I've already left this shit backwater board. Hit me up on soundcloud if you want a cheap hookup on speed, bitcoin or chainlink only.
PS.
Oh yeah just forgot to add that you pussies wouldn't even know the difference between a particle accelerator and an outhouse; maybe you should have taken a stem course instead of going bankrupt learning shit tier modal logic. speaking of outhouses, anyone who's anyone in the accelerationist game has a toilet that not only talks to them, it analyzes and diagnoses their stool. what? yours doesn't even have so much as an lcd display? well maybe if you faggots had accelerated anything ever you would have the money to move somewhere civilized like Singapore or China, places where they don't even know what outhouses are. Guess what? In Guangdong you can pay your taxes in crypto and half the streetcorners have a couple of wengs slinging pure ephedrine. Even done an eight-strip while your black/chinese trans dominatrix screams hare krishna at the top of her lungs and swaps out the onaholes on your prototype VR masterbation rig every time you say the word neoreaction? (our safe word is Musk). Anyways, on my way out, got a virtual bitcoin conference to attend in a few hours and me and my girl Sheba have a few ideas on how to fill the time if you know what I mean. Speed it up already. Posted from my google glasses by the way, I'm a big fan of those crazy memes, takes a little while to type but it's a small price to pay to make Gnon happy.

[Anonymous No.14424538]

ACCELERATIONISTS: tell me what the heck all the weird letters mean, and right now. I thought r/acc referred to a reddit page, but apparently not because when I googled it I just found people talking about sports (and I know none of you watch sports). What in the hell do r/acc, l/acc, u/acc, g/acc, b/acc, and all the other damn letter /accs mean?

[Anonymous No.14424620]

>>14424538
right
left
unconditional
gender
black

[Anonymous No.14424632]

>>14423678
this is the take of someone who has not read any acc lit but assumes it must be obvious through the name

> No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way