"Late Feminism" on Jacobite

[Anonymous No.9837562]

Nick Land fanboy @AngloRemnant just put out this piece on Jacobite about the coming demise of the female sex and its replacement by capital. A pretty good piece.
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/08/01/late-feminism/

[Anonymous No.9837565]

Getting in first so I can edit my response later in what will surely be a hot thread.

[Anonymous No.9837576]

>>9837565
You can't edit 4chan posts.

[Anonymous No.9837675]

It is mandatory to have at least 6 Nick Land threads on /lit/ at any given time.

[Anonymous No.9837682]

>tfw you contacted Jacobite, they asked you to write an article on a topic they chose, and then when you wrote it they rejected it

They even said they liked my writing. Oh well.

[Anonymous No.9837684]

>>9837675
Pretty sure this is the only one up. And it isn't even directly related to him.

[Anonymous No.9837696]

>>9837675
We're lucky his bots are still struggling with the captcha.

[Anonymous No.9837702]

>>9837576
Yes you can.

Edit: I told you so.

[Anonymous No.9837704]

The future that the article describes reminds me of Gattaca a little, kek

[Anonymous No.9837714]

Why does this still feel like alt-right tripe?

[Anonymous No.9837715]

>>9837682
They give you a reason why? That's a shame. DO atleast have a copy of what you wrote that your willing to post here?

[Anonymous No.9837727]

>>9837714
Everything seems like alt-right tripe to you.

[Anonymous No.9837728]

>>9837715
Am also interested.

[Anonymous No.9837737]

>>9837715
They said it was "too broad" and didn't suit them. Which, you know, is all well and good, because the article is about Chesterton and his conception of liberty. I leaned pretty heavily on a Christian conception of liberty, drawing from an essay Chesterton wrote called "The Free Man." So it's full of references to Christianity and in general takes a very Christian and classics-centered perspective on liberty. So on the one hand I can't blame them for not wanting it since they're kind of a neoreaction, accelerationist site. It really isn't their vibe. On the other hand, writing about Chesterton and liberty was their idea in the first place, so I'm not really sure what they were expecting. I even had to fudge the beginning of it to make it fit what I thought they wanted, such that according to a professor of mine whom I showed the article to I actually wound up misrepresenting Chesterton a little. So, in light of that, I'm kind of glad it didn't run.

[Anonymous No.9837745]

>>9837562

>Welcome Nick Land into your magazine
>Everything becomes the Capital
>Alt right becomes the Capital
>Late Left becomes the Capital
>Post modernism becomes the Capital
>No John you are teh capitals

That's why Warwick couldn't stand his antics and his meth. I love the man but he's literally spreading the written version of the black plague (which kinda fits the philosophy I guess, so all power to him).

[Anonymous No.9837754]

>>9837745
stirnerites unite!

[Anonymous No.9837755]

>>9837737
Try sending it to Social Matter.

[Anonymous No.9837781]

>>9837754
It's a sjw shill.

[Anonymous No.9837782]

>>9837755
I may, actually, after I tweak it a bit to get rid of the misrepresentations of which I spoke.

[Anonymous No.9837874]

is nick land actually anti human or just giving a warning

["Anonymous" No.9837944]

I feel bad for women 2bh.

[Anonymous No.9837952]

>>9837944
Calling everything a meme is commonplace now. That anon was ahead of the curve

[Anonymous No.9837953]

>>9837944
>mfw this kind of posting used to be a big deal

2014 feels so long ago

[Anonymous No.9837955]

>>9837944
don't.

[Anonymous No.9837966]

>>9837874
he has schizotypal personality disorder, I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a fuck about humanity

[Anonymous No.9837975]

>>9837955
>>9837944
Do people on this board really feel this way about women? I agree with the description of the core differences between male and female experience in the world, but the conclusion to reserve hatred or scorn seems.... pathetic? I genuinely respect and pity those who choose the life of pain and self-hatred in order to grow their creative or intellectual capacity, and I see this choice to hate women for their supposed inferiority as a walking of that path. Plenty of the most illuminated among us, in all fields, do this. Whether it's the artist unconsciously working his hatred of women into something terribly beautiful, or the betrayal of sex that leads a monk into sublimation of the self.

However, there's also the path of acceptance of the world as it is. It can be childish as much as brave or transcendent to rage against the world for being the way it is. Women are different. If you can accept that, and them, and show at least one of them genuine love and respect, well, I think that's basically anyone's only chance at taking a try at self-actualization. A healthy being who functions in society, and still functions within and for himself. This, being rarer than the greatness of the psychotic earlier described.

[Anonymous No.9837980]

>>9837714
The purpose of the Alt Right is twofold: profit and the obfuscation of serious discourse.

[Anonymous No.9837982]

>>9837980
Sure

[Anonymous No.9837992]

>>9837874
He's non-anthropocentric

[Anonymous No.9838000]

>>9837714
It's not that bad, but it's way too short and shallow to support the sweeping claims it makes. It seems really lazy, like the person writing it was doing so in between shifts at his day job. Amateurish.

[Anonymous No.9838008]

>>9837975
If you don't believe that women's suffrage is the gateway to national suicide then you are a mental infant.

[Anonymous No.9838009]

>>9837982
You post this in every thread where someone toes past the line of neo-fascist wank you like to cower in.

Meanwhile in reality, there is no leftist invasion of /lit/ and there is a very real invasion of 4chan by Stormfags and skinheads who finally figured out how to use the internet. This board isn't supposed to be particularly political, but it always used to be lefties on here. So fuck off with your bullshit. You're the one who doesn't belong here, cuckold.

[Anonymous No.9838013]

>>9837975
>t. triggered women

[Anonymous No.9838017]

>>9838008
>If you don't believe that women's suffrage is the gateway to national suicide then you are a mental infant.

Good point dude! Nice! haha YEAH good POINT woo WOO

if someon DISAGREE with he dude that MAN do make some THANK reatardED!

[Anonymous No.9838018]

>>9838013
>>9838008
>>9837982
t. triggered NEET incel

[Anonymous No.9838020]

>>9837980
>obfuscation of serious discourse
Those on the far right recognize the futility of "serious discourse." There is really no such thing as serious discourse. You enter into it with antithetical aims - right detests left, left detests right. Anyone who actually believes in debate is a fence-sitting milquetoast.

[Anonymous No.9838027]

>>9837975
>pathetic?
Those are terrible qualities for any person to have and anyone who possesses them should be ashamed of themselves regardless of sex.
>However, there's also the path of acceptance of the world as it is.
>at least one of them genuine love and respect
This is the root of your problem: you equate hatred of a disgusting universal with the incapacity to love a beautiful particular. I despise the qualities attributed to women in that post and would contend that these things are even more common in men than in women. To despise the truly detrimental while appreciating the value of truly excellent is something that anyone with a basic concept of morality or aesthetics can tell you makes sense.
You are ovethinking this. Bad things are bad. Bad qualities are bad. People with bad qualities do not make the bad qualities better by having them. I have fucked plenty of women, enough to know that they aren't all that bad. At the same time, I often have to remind myself of their imperfections, since they are often so beautiful in appearance; though appearance does indeed necessarily reflect substance, appearance is never the whole of a thing. Women are as fickle as any human and capable of depths of stupidity that any human can attain. Humans are sinful, prideful creatures; to say that women are excused from these predicates because they are women is to imply an inhumanity on the part of woman.

[Anonymous No.9838030]

>>9838020
>You enter into it with antithetical aims - right detests left, left detests right. Anyone who actually believes in debate is a fence-sitting milquetoast

t. American demi-human

Why do they even bother sending you people to schools? Just shove em' right into a Wallmart greeter's vest, for all the good it does you.

[Anonymous No.9838040]

>>9838009
>Disputes claim with source without providing source
>Then makes claim without providing source

[Anonymous No.9838042]

>>9838020
>All discourse is a debate between left and right
There you go again.
The Alt Right is pure liberalism, by the way.

[Anonymous No.9838051]

>>9838040
LOL I remember when Kike Eunuch and company got doxxed. Why do you think the most significant propaganda center in the Alt Right is located at a .biz address if not because it's an entity that exists for profit?
Denying the Alt Right's attempts to colonize the rest of the Internet is hilarious. We all remember 2015 and 2016.

[Anonymous No.9838053]

>>9838027
Good post. I agree with you, mostly. I certainly never implied we should excuse women their imperfections, though I see this urge throughout the general discourse in our culture.

Still, people like >>9838008 are clearly harboring something like a pathological hatred of women based in their own inadequacies. Maybe someday the male intelligence will be the only valuable trait, but that's not yet the reality, nor am I convinced it ever will be. Women and Men are made for the other in the deepest ways possible. I'm skeptical of the man that denies women humanity.

["Anonymous" No.9838054]

>>9837975
In the abstract, categorically, I find both women and men are pretty terrible. I'm not about to actualize these feelings in conversation though, and I'd rather work subtly and sensibly towards getting people outside of their comfort libidospheres, because the more abrupt option is not a good idea.

[Anonymous No.9838059]

>>9838051
>>9838051
I'm not even Alt-Right and don't like TRS, what does that have to do with your post?

[Anonymous No.9838062]

>>9838051
>Why do you think the most significant propaganda center in the Alt Right is located at a .biz address
But the Daily Stormer ends in a .com address.

[Anonymous No.9838065]

>>9838053
So do all pre-20th century men harbor a "pathological hatred of women based in their own inadequacies?" You can think women are human and also think they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Anonymous No.9838066]

>>9838053
>are clearly harboring something like a pathological hatred of women based in their own inadequacies
It's more of a historical observation that national destruction has followed broadened female emancipation in every society from the Romans onward.

[Anonymous No.9838071]

>>9838065
Should all men be allowed to vote? Personally, I'm not a big fan of the idea of a universal franchise. Something based on merit would really make more sense.

[Anonymous No.9838079]

>>9838071
All white men over the age of 25 should be allowed to vote, imo. You may have your own opinion.

[Anonymous No.9838086]

>>9838079
Well, in my utopia, your opinion wouldn't be relevant.

[Anonymous No.9838091]

>>9838079
I think only married men should vote, besides the qualifications you cited.

[Anonymous No.9838097]

>>9838079
>>9838091
Only property-owning Asian fathers should be allowed to vote, with one vote per son.

[Anonymous No.9838102]

>>9838066
seems incredibly simplistic and misguided but ok

American greatness, for example, proceeded apace after women were given the vote.

>>9838079
This is the distillation of regressive, blind thought. You can't do better than imagining that 1850 Virginia had the most ideal form of government in the world? Enjoy giving this dude the vote but not Anne Carson.

[Anonymous No.9838103]

>>9838091
Well my ideal society would be a Christian one, so most men would already be ideally married by that time. But I don't think you should have to be married in order to.

[Anonymous No.9838117]

>>9838102
>American greatness, for example, proceeded apace after women were given the vote
America proceeded apace into the fucking Great Depression a mere nine years after they were given the right to vote.

[Anonymous No.9838118]

>>9838102
It's not regressive at all. In fact, Ethical Socialism aka National Socialism is the only real revolutionary conservative force in the world nowadays. And men like that wouldn't exist in my society, as military service would be mandatory and physical health and eugenics would be placed as one of the highest values.

[Anonymous No.9838150]

>>9838118
Ironic given the fact that you're probably nothing like the ideal male you're upholding as your citizen in your dorky nazi dreamworld

[Anonymous No.9838153]

>>9838150
I'm pretty fit, I lift and do cardio sometimes. We're just discussing ideal societies. What would your ideal society would be like?

[Anonymous No.9838164]

>>9838153
You'll stop imagining ideal societies when you'll be 16

[Anonymous No.9838165]

>>9838164
It's ok if you don't have one. It's fun to engage in a little speculation and role playing sometimes.

[Anonymous No.9838172]

>>9838118
You lack imagination. Also you're too atheist. Clearly the proper conservative government is a Catholic aristocracy. Like old Venice.

[Anonymous No.9838177]

>>9838153
Sorry for the ad hominem. Im being a dick.

Probably post-racial and deep into genetic manipulation of zygotes to fix low iq / low empathy populations. Education system would focus on teaching children to become self actualized and self-dependent humans. external validation seeking / self loathing account for so many of our societal problems, and they're usually intergenerational.

[Anonymous No.9838184]

>>9838172
No, I'm a Reformed Christian. Not a Papist.

[Anonymous No.9838215]

the market only caters to your needs. you get a product perfected based on your negative reviews. the stuff the article entails are direct result of insecure discourse much like this thread. you call the restaurants manager in an empty brain panic. its not about man vs woman anymore. you argue just as a couple would argue in a broken home towards your imagined husband or wife. the market isnt human but youd like it to be. what happens when the manager not only gives you a refund but lives your life for you, for your own convenience?

[Anonymous No.9838346]

>>9837975
>people on this board
Outsiders need not ask, they need to lurk.

[Anonymous No.9838351]

>>9838079
Votes should be between generals. Decisions should be made by the monarch.

[Anonymous No.9838357]

>>9838351
Votes should be between shareholders. Decisions should be made by the CEO.

[Anonymous No.9838366]

>>9838357
The crucial difference between a state and a company is that a state doesn't have to make a profit to justify its existence.

[Anonymous No.9838405]

>>9838366
Read Moldbug.

[Anonymous No.9838435]

>>9837562
I think the article is pretty bad. I see no reason why the Female sex is singled out, every point the author makes applies equally to men and women. Singling this out as a crisis in femininity is misleading, and reeks of resentment. Name dropping Xenofeminism without actually talking about it is pretty fucking lame too. It's there to say "I don't hate women! Look, I like Xenofeminism!".

The whole essay is filled with over-inflated claims with obnoxious rhetorical flourishes and needlessly complex grammar and vocabulary. It's pretension as hell.

This is coming from someone with a genuine interest in the subject matter and acceleration. This is just terrible writing.

[Anonymous No.9838607]

>>9838435
I assume that the axiom they're working with is that men and women are essentially different. you can't apply theory both ways if you believe in biological determinism. women are reducible to evolutionary drives, which are biologically different or opposed to mens, and thus have a special application in the lovecraftian capital model.

[Anonymous No.9838999]

>>9838042
>The Alt Right is pure liberalism, by the way.
proofs?

[Anonymous No.9839056]

>>9837955

I think the continental plates shifted a tad from the force of that fedora tip, holy fucking shit.

[Anonymous No.9839217]

>>9837562
So the future will be dominated by spergs that don't like women. Got it.

The Matrix wasn't wrong I guess. What he describes sounds about as cold and ugly as that movie portrayed the world as, at least.

[Anonymous No.9839257]

>>9838607
That's a pretty ridiculous assumption in the context of the article. Why would artificial wombs render the female's position redundant, and not the male's position as well? An artificial womb doesn't even need an artificial penis.

It's been a well known fact that cloning technology doesn't even require sperm, that one, two, or even three or more women's DNA is all that's needed. There are some cyber-feminist models out there that call for women to raise children in groups of 3+ without male DNA donors. No such model is possible with only male donors.

All of this BS about "women's privileged position" in the article is a total joke. If anything, women have had been in a position of subjugation, almost domestication. The idea that they have historically exerted sexual selection is amazingly revisionist, when historically it's been male patriarch's choosing who their daughters wed.

If genetic technologies and reproductive technologies could make the biological sexes redundant, but if such technologies only make one sex redundant, it will surely be males.

[Anonymous No.9839340]

>>9837714
Not egalitarian enough?

[Anonymous No.9839344]

>>9839257
I agree. I'm just trying to make sense of it like you are :) the nrx position isn't exactly rigorous.

[Anonymous No.9839357]

>>9837980
We wouldn't want to lose our most precious possession, our serious discourse.

[Anonymous No.9839386]

>Late stage capitalism obsolesces femininity
Just the opposite. In the past, patriarchical social structures were justified by the male sex's superior strength. As first world states increasingly phase shift into information-based markets, the capital-constructed demarcation between spectral sex densities is violently dissolving. The male, who tends to favor top-down hierarchical systems of sociopolitical/cultural control is obliterated and transplanted by the female, who tends to favor horizontal social-webs. The female is optimized for global consumerism, and global consumerism is optimized for the female.

Ask yourself: has the world grown more masculine, or more feminine?

[Anonymous No.9839420]

>>9838118
>Ethical socialism aka National socialism
what

[girardfag No.9839427]

thread is sex
cool stuff anons

[Anonymous No.9839431]

>>9839427
hey girardfag, I've been meaning to talk with you. What do you think of the article, and what do you think of my comment (>>9839386)?

[Anonymous No.9839432]

>>9837562
Semi-relevant post I stumbled on last night

[Anonymous No.9839439]

>>9838017
>>9838018

Wow great retort, really made me reconsider my original thoughts.

[Anonymous No.9839463]

>>9837975
Gosh it's truly wonderful being gay.

[girardfag No.9839488]

>>9839431
the article is interesting as fuck as most always jacobite is. feminism & gender stuff grinds my gears like you wouldn't believe but only because meatbags cannot into forest > trees. all things gender comprise one of the world's most hot-button philosophical issues & it is virtually impossible to talk about this shit.

for example: land put this up on his twitter feed just the other day with the usual amount of bitterness & disgust you would expect. he thinks anything pomo is secular-progressive brainwashing & after evergreen & elsewhere it's hard not to think that something has gone terribly rotten in the state of denmark. but jacobite + theory &c >>>>> fuckface mimetic hackery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUs6_Kcfieg

feminism a thing. xenofeminism a thing. desire a thing. sexbots a thing. transgenderism a thing. baudrillardian We All Transsexuals Now a thing. gender stuff is like climate change stuff: so massive & pervasive & w/implications so far-reaching that the whole thing imho is to hash all this shit out as intelligently & sanely as possible before leaping in to the We Should &c.

>zizek: marx was wrong. we have changed the world enough. the point is not to change the world, the point is to interpret it once again.

the eleventh thesis on feuerbach: massively wired-in to how much third-rate philosophy works. charity a good scene. red team/blue team: dumb dumb. *black* team: maybe not so dumb.

deleuze on societies of control: worth reading time & again. CTRL is the thing. CTRL is what matters. CTRL is non-binary. CTRL > transeverything.

https://cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

>In the past, patriarchical social structures were justified by the male sex's superior strength.
yes

>As first world states increasingly phase shift into information-based markets, the capital-constructed demarcation between spectral sex densities is violently dissolving
yes

>The male, who tends to favor top-down hierarchical systems of sociopolitical/cultural control is obliterated and transplanted by the female, who tends to favor horizontal social-webs.
entirely possible. who the fuck knows? i'm listening. could be? yes? implications?

>the female is optimized for global consumerism, and global consumerism is optimized for the female
to me it's just desire. desire is optimized for consumption, and consumption is optimized for desire. male/female beyond a certain horizon - the plane of the celestial hermaphrodite - no longer really registers to the machine. i think the enantiodromic endgame of desire is CTRL and that is all. CTRL is the real metaphysical bitcoin.

>Ask yourself: has the world grown more masculine, or more feminine?
only weirder & stranger & wilder & crazier.

so a fucking good post, i'd say, in a way cool thread w/a way cool article.

gender matters because desire matters. desire > everything. advertising is the new coal. how this plays out in culture? we will see
>popcorn intensifies

["Anonymous" No.9839599]

>>9839386
Is the average female all that favored by this though? Aren't they almost as alienated as the males? 'cause I don't see girls this generation forming gigantic social spiderwebs; if anything their social relations seem smaller than even my sister's (who's some ten years older than me). Too much work and too much spectacle to have friends.

[Anonymous No.9839656]

>>9839488
I tend to perceive masculinity and femininity as two opposing homoestatic forces, and like any homeostatic process, there are coinciding positive/negative feedback loops that regulate one another (in some ways, the metabolic systems embedded within every layer of the body starting from the molecular up serve as a fractal microcosm for the policies and structure of a properly balanced state. but ofc no such state currently exists or has existed for some time)
I think that human behavior, insofar as it draws influence not only from culture, but from evolutionarily encoded impulses and semiurges, has been balanced by gender roles. Male reproductive behavior (which is to say all behavior) is balanced and opposed by female sex selection, and vice versa.
So if humanity is to be subsumed and assimilated by an asymptotically accelerating automated automation, wouldn't it make sense for the homeostatic properties intrinsic to our own sexual dimorphism be destabilized and eventually obliterated?

It doesn't just seem likely--it's absolutely palpable. So which sex/gender/metabolic feedback loop gets the axe?

Seeing as how the vast majority of the worlds cultures were historically patriarchical, it makes sense that, for whatever reason, males were the torchbearers of tradition. Hell, don't take my word for it, listen to the words of all the SJW theorists, who've long claimed that the woman/homo/trans (note: all variants of femininity) is the vanguard of progress.
Left communism is an aberration, I think, because although liberals will weakly proclaim to protest or dislike capitalism, it is precisely their policies that clear its path; the left/right dichotomy is not two horses bound together, straining in opposite directions, it is one horse straining to move an anchor. Modern republicans are merely confused liberals, and liberals represent the thrust forward

[girardfag No.9839661]

>>9839599
this.

i think, however impossible it may seem, that desire has to be a thing discussed metaphysically & w/o reference to identity politics. this includes gender & normativity. that would seem to me to be at least one possible heuristic for determining the difference between something approximating philosophy & that which is clearly approximating sophistry and seduction.

being a master of suspicion is old news. of course we are floating in mid air. of course.

so how about Back to the Greeks? something like this? it's probably not possible & i don't know how valid a prospect this is. but what *can* be discussed w/o infinite What Did He Mean By This?
>tfw a genealogy of irony seems like an interesting idea. what happened with irony between the 60s - today? where were the cultural shifts and turns? whither Hulkamania? &c

the problem with this is that it would seem that *any* attempt to look at things beyond the horizons of identity politics is going to be construed as an attack on the emancipatory possibilities of identity politics themselves. to not want to talk about gender & identity is itself to immediately signal that you are an Enemy. this is what opens the Great Schism - and honestly, how much does the world today not resemble an age of schismatics w/in post-war liberalism? and suggesting nothing more than a Thirty Years' War over all of this stuff?

desire is something that can never, really, be discussed objectively. even in a world that wasn't feels > reals. but this *is* a feels > reals world, imho. and that is why the feels do need to be discussed as """""""objectively""""""""" as possible.

kefka palazzo probably > j-pete. but j-pete is antifragile as a mofo and he too will go on doing his thing.

who's feeling Back to the Greeks? perhaps can into. or Back to _____? New Game+? i'm curious.

as philoso-memes go new game+ sounds pretty fucking cool to me.

["Anonymous" No.9839663]

>>9839386
>>9839599
Also, I want to contest the (inferred) implication that hierarchy is purely based on strength. What about social pedigree and wealth? What about age and experience? What about aggressiveness and intelligence? Or other character traits such as honesty, fortitude or loyalty? And what about everyone in the middle between the boss and the bottom? How much is female=horizontalism influenced by male=verticalism? Because in my experience, when females are let to themselves in a work area, they don't fall directly into absolutist concensus and can be as prone to admire the excellent as males are.

[Anonymous No.9839674]

>>9839661
they problem is that the greeks are alien and you don't have to interpretive tools to grasp original meaning. you can't ever go back, any movement backwards will just by a syncretic project.

[Anonymous No.9839688]

>>9839599
It kind of depends upon your interpretation of the word "favored". In this context, it should be disentangled from all positive/humanist connotative value. Being favored by capital/progress/technology is like being "favored" by Cthulhu--perhaps it is better to be eaten.

But you're right, girls aren't forming huge social circles. I spoke wrong (some of this is hard to convey and it doesn't help that I'm a charlatan)
Have you heard of the plane of immanence? What we're seeing is a flattening of once vertical hierarchies. Where once the world was perceived as a set of distinct forms and substances, it is increasingly becoming one Massively Entangled Assemblage Thing. Masculinity is all about the construction and maintenance of rigid boundaries. As demarcations and boundaries are dissolved, so is masculinity. Hypotonic/Hypertonic, etc..

[girardfag No.9839697]

>>9839674
let's *de*-alienate then. we know plenty about alienation. maybe some people in white lab coats
>or white togas
is the order of the day.

there is a word for this already, of course: it's motherfucking Caaaaaaaaaaapitalism, which has learned everything and more about this process & uploaded it - is uploading it, right now - to mainframes to sell us fantasies of chicken sandwiches devoured by porn stars & starlets.

reigning in desire: a good scene.
>says the unhinged lunatic shitposter

but the thing isn't about politics. metaphysics > politics, i says, and aesthetics > metaphysics. desires overcome and transmitted to the human sciences, just as the man says. or lacan: traversing symbolic orders. or deleuze: madness is unbecoming, it isn't as sexy as we think it is. the rabbit hole has no bottom.

let's look to people who have *resolved* their shit rather than those in a permanent kaleidoscopic wilderness of irresolvability. not finally & w/respect.

you know who had a good sense of this? fucking Euripides. the Bacchae. Pentheus. imprison not the god of wild desire & presume he can be commanded. let's not think we can torture that poor fellow or put him to work in the media department. let's try something more enlightened. let's get some buddhists & chinese sages in the room.

[Anonymous No.9839713]

>>9837982
Glad /pol/ is here to (((save))) us.

[Anonymous No.9839728]

>>9837714
Because it is. One of the founders frequents 4chan and often shills his shitty website here. I guarantee you he posted this.

[girardfag No.9839749]

>>9839656
& for the record i have no real issue with any of this, either. this is exactly the kind of shit that gets my noggin floggin.'

>So which sex/gender/metabolic feedback loop gets the axe?
amor fati. ideally nobody gets the axe but maybe we prune & cultivate some gardens. something like deep-scale psychic ecology lies in this direction.
>ya gotta be kidding me
>why not? how's repression working out?

>Modern republicans are merely confused liberals, and liberals represent the thrust forward
this. freedom is the thing: and i might even say that freedom really means to discover enantiodromics. free to become the opposite of what you once were & learn something about being and becoming.

speaking of which

>it is precisely their policies that clear its path; the left/right dichotomy is not two horses bound together, straining in opposite directions, it is one horse straining to move an anchor

then to write your small scroll & fragments cosmic and leave it in the temple before departing to starve yourself in the wilderness like based omnipilled megaphilosophical all-star heraclitus "i'm fucking heraclitus" heraclitus
>or something

i don't know man. i'm just riffing here. but beyond a certain horizon it just makes more sense to me to say ridiculous & hyperbolic things rather than not say them

also heraclitus
>hnng heraclitus
>hnng enantiodromia
>hnng quantum physics & mimetic desire & therapy & ff6
>fucking hell /lit/ i'm supposed to be doing something productive today why are you always so face-fuckingly interesting & cool & awesome can't you see i'm trying to hate the world here why why why why do you do this to me

[Anonymous No.9839787]

>>9839697
how can you de-alienate when accelerationists and traditionalists and liberals want to continue the source of modern ennui in the first place? everyone is too shit scared to look forward, always backward, to the same thoughts that make capital stronger.
i.e bacchanalia and the carnival was seen as a necessary part of a sexually/gender repressed society. it seems desire and its regulation are not as simply as our limited classical knowledge would have us believe. a lesson Justinian learnt the hard way at nika

[Anonymous No.9839804]

>>9839749
you know it's interesting, from your posts I always get the idea that you think this is all cool and interesting, and it is, but at the same time a lot of this stuff legitimately scares the shit out me. I have no idea how to fix Land's wild ride, much less get off.

[Anonymous No.9839808]

Thanks girardfag for saving this thread.

[girardfag No.9839842]

>>9839787
this man was one of the great hands-down no question S-rank prophet/visionaries of the 20c.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x6725NW8vw

>how can you de-alienate when accelerationists and traditionalists and liberals want to continue the source of modern ennui in the first place?
by understanding. skip all the ideologies, skip the ennui too. stare into the madness and get face rolled & write poetry or compose a song. whatever the fuck. whatever.

cynicism/ennui: played.
the gutenberg galaxy & its pants-on-head retarded complexity: not played.

being a smug retard: meme.
being a triggered retard: meme.
having your shit shredded to pieces & contemplating
>those vaporous beings in regions beyond right knowing where the eye wanders and the lip jerks and drools
: not meme.

>everyone is too shit scared to look forward, always backward, to the same thoughts that make capital stronger.
mcluhan: the future of the future is the present, and that is terrifying.

everyone is scared. everyone should be scared. but. but but. let's un-scare. let's de-alienate. let's re-thinkify. let's re-brainificate. let's upgrade paranoia & get a grip. let's All Of That.

shed cynicism, lose madness, drop the rest. let's Flaky Cosmic New Age Bullshit w/required and ugpill when we get too out there. much else.

let's activate the emergency battery power on philosophy & kill the t-1000.
>let's meme like a hysterical memecuck
>way ahead of you inner self
>ffs kys girardfag
>i'm tryin' i'm tryin' heah

>i.e bacchanalia and the carnival was seen as a necessary part of a sexually/gender repressed society
it was. 2000 years of oedipus will do that

>it seems desire and its regulation are not as simply as our limited classical knowledge would have us believe
boy you got that right

>a lesson Justinian learnt the hard way at nika
spenglerian grand-style history & much else did *absolutely* nothing wrong

>>9839804
>I always get the idea that you think this is all cool and interesting
i do

>and it is
aye

>but at the same time a lot of this stuff legitimately scares the shit out me
me too. don't think it doesn't. my life is a *mess* because of this shit. spent too much time thinking instead of being prudent

>I have no idea how to fix Land's wild ride, much less get off
me neither. randy savage had a good idea. mcluhan got it. girard. deleuze. slotetdijk. the chinese. the stoics. there's no end of philosophers out there to read. find the ones you like & read the shit out of them. believe the hype. philosophy is the coolest but it is indeed a Wild Ride.

one idea: don't be like me. don't be an unhinged lunatic. not worth it. much substance abuse follows. and, i will say this again, my five favorite words:
>i am not a philosopher

i'm not. i'm a meme-addled failed writer w/an unholy thirst for metaphysics. just a memer memeing. trying to clean his room. nothing more. warrants mentioning.

>>9839808
it's the other way around my guy

[Anonymous No.9839864]

>>9839808
I'll bring it back to where it needs to go as my OP intended:

Women are simply inferior and they've ruined White civilization, which we have spent so long and so much effort to build, through rational male logic and courage.

Women are a cancer and they're destroying everything. Take away their vote, or take away whiteness and masculinity

[Anonymous No.9839885]

>>9839842
>everyone is scared. everyone should be scared. but. but but. let's un-scare. let's de-alienate. let's re-thinkify. let's re-brainificate. let's upgrade paranoia & get a grip. let's All Of That.
and how many starve to achieve this aesthetic ideal? you say ennui is played but what does your typical data-entry worker do to eat while he's getting rid of the job that contributes to his "played" out condition?

[Anonymous No.9839891]

>>9839864
Ironically, women can only be evaluated as inferior under a feminist context, where men and women are functionally identical, and only differentiated through social construction.
Tradition claims that men and women serve different purposes, socially, culturally, politically, biologically, and familially. Under the traditional paradigm, it makes about as much sense to say "women are inferior to men" as "toasters are inferior to lamps".

[Anonymous No.9839929]

>>9839864
Stop false-flagging, it's obvious.

[girardfag No.9839959]

>>9839885
>how many starve
does not compute

>you say ennui is played but what does your typical data-entry worker do to eat while he's getting rid of the job that contributes to his "played" out condition?
see above

let me clarify:
in my experience theory is like driving a car. the accelerator is suspicion and empiricism is the brake.

being bored is fine. it's just like peterson says: order is what you get when things are working. or fukuyama: maybe we have hit the end of history. the thing there is the condition of decadence, of the last man.

as my posts would indicate, i am trying to get beyond politics and increasingly beyond metaphysics. i would like to write fiction. i stumbled into Nick Land's Wild Ride purely by accident. i am now trying to drag myself out of that fun house and will perhaps have a story to tell.

so please don't misinterpret me. not only am i halfway between psychoanalysis & philosophy, i am also halfway between *my own* psychoanalysis/philosophy and that of the other's. the word for this is ideology and i know this very well.

that is how it is for me. i believe it to be so for a lot of people. traversing the symbolic realm, cleaning their room, becoming a BwO - not all the same, these ideas, but not so different: all *escape mechanisms.* but trying to get over a certain psychic hump sometimes only gets humpier the more one tries.

so the answer to, how many have to starve is, obviously, *nobody.* and as for your data-entry guy, please don't misinterpret me. people are different.

i'm fucked by bewilderment and trying to find a way back *into* normal and boring regular life. i've seen enough weirdness now. that's what i'm all about. i'm not propounding any ideologies. i'm certainly not trying to tell anyone else what they should do with their lives. everybody's psyche is different in that sense.

philosophy has been a true Alice and Wonderland experience for me. i used to be very skeptical about all of it, keeping it at arm's reach, everything just kind of superficial, &c. more recently shit has gotten entirely too close & paranoid. but this too is a bad scene; this is to only be a hysteric & infinitely repeat oneself.

so i am a sort of true believer then in philosophy & analysis. therapy, in a way, if you can believe it. i do think the pieces connect & certainly the spice must flow also. what advice would i give to that data-entry guy? absolutely none.

it is a good thing to have a job, have a partner that loves you, do the right thing, eat your vegetables, all that boring stuff. it is. some people - like me - are so fucking stubborn & stupid that they have to have their faces rubbed in the alternative before they understood. well: message received. the night is indeed dark and full of spooks.

so unspooking is a good thing, that's what i'm saying. continental philosophy is a cynicism shredder. but once that shit is shredded, it's a good idea to go back to reality. which is what i am now going to be doing.

[Anonymous No.9839965]

>>9838079
Only male philosophers over the age of 50 should be allowed to vote, and each philosopher gets to vote once for every existing statue bearing his likeness

[Anonymous No.9839966]

>>9839891
>Under the traditional paradigm, it makes about as much sense to say "women are inferior to men" as "toasters are inferior to lamps".
Except that its explicitly stated that one must submit to the other.

Hate how the modern right always tries to obfuscate what it actually wants. You want the subordination of half the planet - unsurprisingly that half responds negatively to it.

[Anonymous No.9839993]

>>9837952
This comment is a meme.

[Anonymous No.9840007]

>>9839966
Consider for a moment why you so reflexively believe that subordination implies "inferiority".

[Anonymous No.9840013]

>>9839959
hm. these are very different positions re: support of jacobite's article and claiming to be beyond ideology/metaphysics. the article is pointing to a very real-world, material application. which would mean that on one level you are supporting the a normative view of the world and everything that entails.

that's why I'm confused. ennui isn't just theory, people feel it because they are in the machine with empty feedback loops. they put in work, get cash, and feel nothing. this is the ideal world for Jacobite and in the case of land, not inhuman enough.

peterson is convinced jungian-catholic archetypes are psychologically healthy. Jung would be horrified by this kind of persona. too narrow, too many horrific social implications. inquisition wasn't nice yo.

so if you are not theorising for well-being, then what is the end goal?

["Anonymous" No.9840047]

>>9840007
Mmm... Hrmmmmm...

Perhaps human can be to machine as woman is to man.

[Anonymous No.9840058]

>>9840007
Being forced to submit does not make the person being oppressed inferior, as a person, but as a social relation they are treated objectively as an inferior.

Now fuck off back to Raqqa Muhammad

[girardfag No.9840082]

>>9840013
>different positions
is it tho? let's just understand the phenomena around us. that's all i'm saying. let's echolocate in the darkness and see what happens.

>normative
i'm *fully* compromised on this. *i* - me me - require normativity. i have looked for it in the world. i have not found it. my own psychic equilibrium nevertheless depends on it: with all that *that* entails. aka mimesis. when you are already in a state of chaos being given *yet another choice* can be an acutely uncomfortable experience. i am fumbling towards something like consistency. i cannot make it up sui generis.

>that's why I'm confused
i'm often a confusing & confused guy

>ennui isn't just theory, people feel it because they are in the machine with empty feedback loops
yes

>they put in work, get cash, and feel nothing. this is the ideal world for Jacobite and in the case of land, not inhuman enough
land is complex tho. i cannot help but interpret his work as a kind of scream of despair. ofc he too wants The Good Old Days. today it looks to him like singapore. land's psychology tho is not my psychology. i've only come to understand my own through getting wonked all out of proportion by him. landian thought is a very persuasive argument for the boots-on-the-ground reality of philosophy beyond the linguistic turn. i am okay with this. i am persuaded by his economic determinism but i do not share his attitudes v/wat do.

i think the human is still a good thing. i have not always felt this way.

>peterson is convinced jungian-catholic archetypes are psychologically healthy. Jung would be horrified by this kind of persona. too narrow, too many horrific social implications. inquisition wasn't nice yo
talk about it. i'm listening. i like j-pete b/c i am a failed writer whose failings led him into philosophy and i want to fictionalize my shit rather than politicize or philosophize it. to me, Art is the thing. you Made Something. something. even if it has all the charm & usefulness of a shop-class spice rack. something. that's my goal. that is my aim. and to maintain some kind of equilibrium in the rest of the world and just be a cool and anonymous & not so trigged guy who can do the boring stuff that is required of him & not think so much. because beyond a certain horizon the reasons & the existentialism & all the rest is only *your own room* and no one else's. it's disenchanting, but this is i think what it means to traverse the symbolic order. in some sense.

>so if you are not theorising for well-being, then what is the end goal?
i am theorizing for well-being tho. i like well-being. i think it's great. ataraxia. aporia. taoist coolness. buddhist *understanding* of suffering. heideggerian piety of thought. deleuzian immanence. not so much scapegoating, or *fascination* with violence. all this.

well-being is a good scene. it's way fucking harder than it looks, i have learned. to just be a normal good guy & not another victim of his own desires.

[Anonymous No.9840095]

>>9839257
The problem with your argument is that men are dominating the STEM fields and are doubtlessly dominating the ratio of investors who are pushing forward things like cloning tech. Women will never get their hands on this tech first. Men will use it to make women obsolete before it happens the other way around.

[Anonymous No.9840105]

>>9840082
>i am theorizing for well-being tho. i like well-being.

I wouldn't call a masculine dominated, machine capital where humans are literal meat for the grind well-being. nor would I call j-pete's hierarchy of witch hunt reaction well-being.

so where along the lines is or not ok to ok is your theory fiction pointing?

[girardfag No.9840169]

>>9840082
briefly, a little more:

two things disrupt well-being.

one: cynicism.
two: hysteria.

these are connected. both involve estrangement & alienation. much else. they transcend red team/blue team.

cynicism is what i encounter most frequently. this is *impiety* of thought.
hysteria i encounter less frequently, but just as painfully: this is *excess* piety of thought, Holy Terror.

neither is a good scene.

wittgenstein: fly out of bottle > fly in bottle.
lacan: sphinx on suicide watch.
dem chinese: tao yo
dem stoics: nature yo

& much else. the psychological conditions of wisdom, the philosophical aspects of therapy - my stuff.

me: not an academic.
me: not fucking *anything.*
me: a neurotic w/a wi-fi connection and a cheap word processor.

that's it. that's the whole shebang. and trying to *recapitulate* all of this, so that i can let it go, and stop thinking, and stop a lot of other shit. because i've seen enough. more than enough. enough for a lifetime.

>>9840105
>wouldn't call a masculine dominated, machine capital where humans are literal meat for the grind well-being
it isn't. it's a fucking goddamn nightmare. but *people do it to themselves.* everything runs on desire, and these desires should teach us about amor fati, enantiodromia, mimesis, much else. *that is the present clusterfuck of the world.* one big immanent cybernetic desire-factory-shitshow or whatever. that is the Capitalism we all know and love and hate to know and love & which is How It Be now.

we need well-being in this b/c every terrorist you see is a guy having an existential crisis. that's why. because the spice must flow.

>nor would I call j-pete's hierarchy of witch hunt reaction well-being.
i believe peterson means well and that his intentions are honest and not prosecutorial. he has balls of steel & is fighting the most unpleasant academic-political battles under the sun. his readings of derrida, foucault, & lacan are silly & uncharitable. we can forgive him this & see the larger picture: *cynicism.*

>so where along the lines is or not ok to ok is your theory fiction pointing?
a story about assassins, insects, time machines, telepathy, bugs, drugs, paranoia, betrayal, deserts, money, and the underworld. an epic adventure within a society of control. a series of confessions & weird conversations between angsty fuckups who think too much. no end of baudrillard. lots of knife fights.
>fedora as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
>uuuuuuuuu
>uuuu
>cc
>k
and i don't care. it will sell 25 copies among my family & friends. but it will be there and i will have written it and i will be able to get with Silence again.

silence is where it's at. silence is the thing. To Let The World Be. kojima knew the deal.

[Anonymous No.9840179]

>>9840095
>>9840095
>The problem with your argument is that men are dominating the STEM fields and are doubtlessly dominating the ratio of investors who are pushing forward things like cloning tech. Women will never get their hands on this tech first. Men will use it to make women obsolete before it happens the other way around.

Accelerationism 101: Technology dominates Humanity. Technology makes use of humans, Men do not dominate technology.

But beyond that, if the woman becomes redundant, then so does the man. If reproductive technology makes child-bearing obsolete, it makes the whole apparatus of sexuality into pure entertainment.

This whole article is just flat out retarded. I'm very disappointed Jacobite would run it at all.

[Anonymous No.9840212]

>>9840179
>Men do not dominate technology.
I know little of accelerationism, but if that is a held principle then I don't think much of it. That is a joke to me. From the inside of the bubble it might look like that, but there are people outside of it, pulling the strings. It's very ignorant to think this is a mere fantasy.

The procreative biological function of both sexes would become obsolete. What's left is everything else. But men still dominate the world, so yes, what happens then is women become pure entertainment. Women do, not men, because men are in control. It is left up to the man's fancy.

I don't like the sound of that future either, because I have no penchant for cruelty and manipulation like that. It is disturbing to me. But this is why I don't run anything in our society and I think it is a future that is very plausible, because the men who are running it are like that.

[Anonymous No.9840263]

>>9840212
Well, if you don't no much of Accelerationism, I guess that's on you, but the author seems wilfully ignorant of the greater implications.

Artificial wombs, genetic technology, artificial intelligence, advanced robotics: the final outcome of this is a new Subject, a mechanical entity superior to Humanity. To think that the replacement stops with replacing women is incredibly shortsighted.

It might appear that Males dominate the tech fields, but don't mistake their frequency for mastery. Very few people in the tech industries have any fucking clue where they are going. They show up for their day jobs, or maybe the innovate some grand new invention, but metaphorically they are driving off a cliff, or perhaps driving into a wall.

Nick Land has a good analogy that fits perfectly here. You can imagine some Catholic Bishop, who thinks that the printing press will revolutionize the church's ability to spread it's message. Sure, that was true, but more importantly it allowed all of the church's critics to spread divergent messages, and splintered the church into countless movements.

To think reproductive technologies will eliminate women, but to not see how that it will also eliminate humanity generally, is the same kind of mistake.

[Anonymous No.9840284]

>>9840212
its this irony in pop culture feminism. women are being heralded as the leading economic power to flat out throw them under the bus once the fantasy fades and the real dangers start to show. so automatically any display of 'strong women' gets praised all the while being complicit in their self-destruction.

[Anonymous No.9840316]

>>9837562
I'm going to break down how stupid this article is

>Woman has had a good run. For 200,000 years humankind’s anisogamous better (and bigger) half has enjoyed a position of desirability and safety befitting a scarce commodity. She has also piloted the evolutionary destiny of our species, both as a sexual selector and an agitator during man’s Promethean journey. In terms of comfort and agency, the human female is uniquely privileged within the annals of terrestrial biology.

Anyone who think's women have been able to pilot the the evolutionary destiny of humanity is ignoring that patriarchal societies have always allowed father's to pick spouses for their daughters. It isn't until maybe the last 100 years where that dynamic has been slowly changing, but only in the western world (that is a minority fraction of all of the globe). Arranged Marriages are still incredibly common in the middle east, africa and asia.

>annals of terrestrial biology
This kind of rhetorical flourish just pisses me off.

>But the era of female privilege is ending, in a steady decline that began around 1572. Woman’s biological niche is being crowded out by capital.

Capital pressure is towards the automation and reproduction of all human ability, not just female ability.

>The most obvious and vulgar manifestations of female obsolescence are entering mainstream consciousness. Starting with artificial wombs and ending with bespoke recombination of entire genomes, no one seriously doubts that feminine reproductive hardware will become extraneous.

These technologies make both male and female 'hardware' extraneous. Why the focus on the female? Not to mention that artificial wombs still need real eggs, while they don't need sperm.

>What will be the sexual-market consequences of excising one sex’s biological imperative within a single generation?

'Sexual-market' should be a warning sign. This guy is likely buying into resentful philosophies of Alpha and Beta males.

>Some of the best discourse on the topic is being conducted in amphibian corners of Twitter.

I really doubt Frog-Twitter is having meaningful discourses about this. He hasn't cited any, I'm guessing most of it is obnoxious 'Chad and Stacey' bullshit. And really, 'amphibian corners of twitter'? Again another obnoxious rhetorical flourish I can't stand.

> Sexual reproduction is the atomic unit of every civilization we are familiar with, and soon it will no longer exist.

Setting aside the over-confidence he has in this claim, current cloning technologies still require eggs but do not require sperm. This should push opposite conclusion, that Males will be first to become obsolete.

continuing in next post.

["Anonymous" No.9840327]

>>9840169
“Not if you’ve been where we have. Forty years ago, in Südwest, we were nearly exterminated. There was no reason. Can you understand that? No reason. We couldn’t even find comfort in the Will of God Theory. These were Germans with names and service records, men in blue uniforms who killed clumsily and not without guilt. Search-and-destroy missions, every day. It went on for two years. The orders came down from a human being, a scrupulous butcher named von Trotha. The thumb of mercy never touched his scales.”

“We have a word that we whisper, a mantra for times that threaten to be bad. Mba-kayere. You may find it will work for you. Mba-kayere. It means ‘I am passed over.’ To those of us who survived von Trotha, it also means that we have learned to stand outside our history and watch it, without feeling too much. A little schizoid. A sense for the statistics of our being. One reason we grew so close to the Rocket, I think, was this sharp awareness of how contingent, like ourselves, the Aggregat 4 could be—how at the mercy of small things…dust that gets in a timer and breaks electrical contact…a film of grease you can’t even see, oil from the touch of human fingers, left inside a liquid-oxygen valve, flaring up soon as the stuff hits and setting the whole thing off—I’ve seen that happen…rain that swells the bushings in the servos or leaks into a switch: corrosion, a short, a signal grounded out, Brennschluss too soon, and what was alive is only an Aggregat again, an Aggregat of pieces of dead matter, no longer anything that can move, or that has a Destiny with a shape—stop doing that with your eyebrows, Scuffling. I may have gone a bit native out here, that’s all. Stay in the Zone long enough and you’ll start getting ideas about Destiny yourself.”

[Anonymous No.9840350]

>>9840316
shut up nerd

wimmun is obsolet

[Anonymous No.9840369]

>>9840316
>Strictly speaking, the breadth of the coming changes extend beyond even civilizational dynamics. They will affect things that are prior. One of the oldest and most practical definitions for a biological species defines its boundary as the largest group of organisms where two individuals, via sexual reproduction, can produce fertile offspring together.

This is wrong. There are plenty of organisms that reproduce asexually. I'd guess most organisms do not engage in sexual reproduction. In fact, sexuality is a much newer evolutionary invention. If it disappears, this by no means forces us to change the definitions of a biological species.

>Q: What traits will be selected for?
>A: Ability to thrive in a global market economy (i.e. ability to generate value for capital.)
>Q: What material substrate will generate the new genomes?
>A: Capital equipment.
>Q: Who will be making the selection?
>A: People, at least initially, (and who coincidentally will be making decisions that map 1-to-1 to the interests of capital.)
>Replace any of the above instances of the word capital with women, and you would have accurate answers for most of our species’ history.

Let's try his substitution.
>Q: What traits will be selected for?
A: Ability to thrive in a Matriarchy (i.e. ability to generate value for Woman.)

Anyone with a basic understand of history will note that these answers are completely false. Humanity has never been, on any large scale, a Matriarchal species. If anything, the increasing size and strength of human males should indicate selection towards typically patriarchal systems like warfare and subjugation of weaker women.

>Q: What material substrate will generate the old genomes?
A: Female Reproductive Organs

What? No. Genetic recombination has always historically required male and female organs.

>Q: Who will be making the selection?
A: People, at least initially, (and who coincidentally will be making decisions that map 1-to-1 to the interests of Woman.)

When has mating and spouse selection ever been driven by the interests of women? Never.

>But jumping-the-womb unambiguously clarifies our future: humanity’s evolutionary trajectory points toward increasingly integrated symbiosis with capital. Failing to orient toward the use of technological capital is to be out-competed by those who do. One sees why Nick Land’s accelerationism has emerged as the inescapable philosophical discourse of the last 25 years.

Very true about Nick Land, but the author is missing the post-human nature of Land's arguments. Land has always assumed non-human or maybe trans-gender, trans-human subjects as the winners of the future. Again, if woman are obsolete, then so are men.

continued in next post

[Anonymous No.9840394]

>>9837562
Another purple prose feminist text. I wonder why third-wave feminists are so afraid of tech, and most all, seen completely ignorant of the empowerment it provides.
When she says capital, I shall assume that is in the sense of baby-making because, literaly, thats all she buzz about. Does this lady knows that being free from the shakels that nature imposed over women (that is, being the incubation chamber) is the most empowering thing ever?
If it wasent for the purple prose, the overly dramatic tone, the overly complex words to sound grandiose, and the complaining over empowering tools, this already would be a useless text. After all the fear mongering and the babbling, is just another purple prosed feminist text to stain the already stained reputacion of third wave feminist.
The tools that we have today, allow women to be free, and choose their lives without having to fear for themselfs.
We are going beyond our original nature, and we must press on. This babbling about capital and women is the same garbage every where these people talk, and is useless every time.
We cant turn 100% perfect, but we can go as high as 99%, and no babbling will stop it.
To go beyond nature and be more than a simples human, this is the true meaning of things, and this isen't about capital, is about developing oneself to the maximum.

[girardfag No.9840396]

>>9840169
last one for the day.

if we aren't going to go Back to the Greeks in full-on togas like Awesome Greek Heroes - and i submit this is by no means a bad idea - i like going Back to the Back to the Greeks guy also.

the meaning of the world is care, and the world is not a matter of indifference to us. how to care about the world? everyone works this out in their own way. there are no end of ways to work out one's own well-being: the chinese, buddhists, stoics, deleuzians, jungerians, many others all have their ways of doing this.

existential humanism in philosophy is imho complete as of 1927. more than this is not required. this is not an argument for everything else pic rel argued for. better to have a vast & cool network of dasein-types sorting it out. a cool & spooky & mysterious world. very little to dislike about that.

de-hystericize, un-cynicalize, & maybe there will be some common ground shorn of mimetic friction. failing that the macho man did nothing wrong.

time-preference a thing. time-preference maybe the thing. and -

>>9840327
and.

metaphysics > politics,
aesthetics > metaphysics.

>wat > aesthetics tho

mos def no Hortatory for you. but i will send one of my drones over to ask one of your drones to say that 20 years is a little much.

giving advice, being ideological, saying what others should do: meme af
writing fiction: the only sane alternative.

>somebody: why do you write fiction
>yudkowsky: well, i tried not writing fiction, and that didn't work

>I may have gone a bit native out here, that’s all. Stay in the Zone long enough and you’ll start getting ideas about Destiny yourself.
yes.

>We have a word that we whisper, a mantra for times that threaten to be bad. Mba-kayere. You may find it will work for you. Mba-kayere. It means ‘I am passed over.’ To those of us who survived von Trotha, it also means that we have learned to stand outside our history and watch it, without feeling too much. A little schizoid. A sense for the statistics of our being. One reason we grew so close to the Rocket, I think, was this sharp awareness of how contingent, like ourselves, the Aggregat 4 could be
yes

traversal of symbolic order: dat exodus.
the disenchanted memescale wasteland ahead: dat rest of life.
knowing you only know nothing: dat new game+.
putting cool fiction into the world: dat gentle reminder.

i will stop myself here b/c otherwise it will be hard to tell the smoke from the mirrors. this shit belongs in fiction also. level-2 my guy. hope xunzi and those buddhists continue to work their magic. fiction is the endgame, or a decent waystation while you wait for the next train.

catch based thread & based anons again soonish.

[Anonymous No.9840410]

>>9840369
>With that unsettling conclusion in focus–of capital poised to completely circumscribe female agency in the story of humanity– an examination of recent history reveals a certain continuity in the back-story. Before external reproductive technology or even genes themselves were imagined, technological capital was grooming women for their coming demotion.

Here the author is almost getting at something sensible. Females have been sexually selected for their 'demotion', that is to be physically smaller and weaker, but also social pressure to be submissive and obedient. But to make the full Accelerationist conclusion, you have to realize that capital is grooming us all to be better symbionts, to be increasingly dependent on tools, technology and medicines. If anything females are better groomed for a world where muscle power is replaced with machine power. It's the male physiology (and maybe psychology) that will not be needed in a world where robots fight robots and where robots work the factories and move heavy loads.

I don't know, I can keep going paragraph by paragraph, but this author is either an idiot or engaged in a wilfully misleading argument. As Nick Land wrote: "Nothing human makes it out of the near-future." This author seems to be engaged in fantastic wish fulfillment, pretending that the problems described by Acceleration are only problems for femininity and not just Humanity as a whole.

Fuck Frog-Twitter.

[Anonymous No.9840430]

>>9840394
dude, this is written by a man and it is not a feminist text. Gianni is a male name. There are totally feminists who realize the stuff you're saying (about the empowering nature of technology to break patriarchal oppression, see Xenofeminism and Cyber Feminism).

This author is some frog-twitter autist who can't get laid and wants to fantasize about a world without women.

and yeah, his purple prose is some of the most obnoxious shit I've read recently.

[Anonymous No.9840459]

>>9840430
thats the point though. its increasingly not a fantasy anymore.

[girardfag No.9840471]

>>9840327
and by the way the art is fucking great tho. i currently have DuneTrump as a wallpaper on my other PC to remind me what a Fun world we live in. if you made this yourself i am thoroughly amazed & it is wonderfully atmospheric.

more enantiodromics. enjoy
>not in the lacanian sense, i mean, but actually, right

[Anonymous No.9840478]

>>9840430
Gianni is a man's name? Oh god. That is a awesome name! It sounds female and it isent! Godammit, why can't I have a name like that?

["Anonymous" No.9840484]

>>9840410
>It's the male physiology (and maybe psychology) that will not be needed in a world where robots fight robots and where robots work the factories and move heavy loads.
Ehhhhh. I dunno. There is a certain niche for males in technology. Men aren't only jocks.

>>9840471
That's from Gravity's Rainbow, bro.

[Anonymous No.9840490]

>>9840484
>Ehhhhh. I dunno. There is a certain niche for males in technology. Men aren't only jocks.
in a traditional/red-pilled ideal society, yes they are. physical impotence will be bred out or cut out completely.

[Anonymous No.9840492]

>>9840430
Btw, this isent a feminist text? It must be my prejudice kicking in. I was wrong about this then. Is just I have read a very similar text once, by feminist author, combining me thinking it was a women's name and boom, my prejudice against third wave feminism kicked in.
Shit, I hate when this happens, but the third wavers drive me so mad lately that sometimes I went full witch-hunt mode in my judements.
I will be honest, the text, sometimes, do draw some reasenable questions, but mostely is dull, uniteresting, purple prosed, and the last one them, it is what ultimately kills it for me.
Like I said: if it wasent for the purple prose, this would be much better, because when you write like that, and worst, it turns out to be a bunch of garbage, this just makes the limit pass the breaking point.
And it isent even Kant to be written in such hard words...

[girardfag No.9840515]

>>9840484
that's GR? well dayum. i still haven't read that yet. thought that might have been OC from what you were working on. guess i'll have to give it a read

ah well

things i learn on /lit/. whadda place.

["Anonymous" No.9840523]

>>9840490
Right, because a traditional/red-pilled society doesn't have craftsmen, or musicians, or farmers, or priests. If civilization is anything, it's men being capable of being less warrior-like, not more.

[Anonymous No.9840524]

>>9840492
Yeah, it's interesting how those biases can kick in. One time, an acquaintance (idiot) I knew posted a quote to FB. The quote immediately struck me as idiotic, but half way through I realized it was from my favorite author and favorite book. WHOOPS.

But this article is total trash, see my refutations
>>9839257
>>9840179
>>9840263
>>9840316
>>9840369
>>9840410

tldr: The author is bastardizing Accelerationism into an anti-woman position, when it is an anti-human position that doesn't discriminate when it comes to sex.

[Anonymous No.9840526]

>>9839656
I find people like you who talk about such things in these ways incredibly strange creatures. Are you a robot or something?

[Anonymous No.9840531]

>>9840524
such is the nonsense of the logic of hyper-masculinity.

[Anonymous No.9840860]

>>9839842
>i am not a philosopher
so you actually think you're a philosopher, huh? pathetic. you're just a meme-addled failed writer w/an unholy thirst for metaphysics. just a memer memeing. trying to clean his room. nothing more.

[Anonymous No.9840885]

Too many spooks in here.

[Anonymous No.9841719]

>>9839386
This.