Accelerationsim

>have you read Moldbug?
yes; very idealistic

in my own case i find myself most attracted to his kind of thinking because i am exactly the kind of unhinged lunatic likely to go on thinking way, way, way too much about Land, and so neocameral formalism appeals to people like me. i honestly find his work quite fascinating, but i'm also equally fascinated by the real idealism within the Radical Enlightenment as well. and Hegel, and whoever else.

i'm reading some stuff on cameralism now since this thread, it's interesting stuff. on some deep level the ideals of the Republican French and the conservative Prussians are never really going to meet (except in the figure of Napoleon, i suppose, or other idealized figures). it's all pretty fascinating stuff tho.

Attached: Frederick_Diplo (1).png (1600x900, 2.28M)

that Moldbug's stuff seems like it comes out of an excess leftism idealism is more my point. it's the same culture that produces a guy like Peterson. socialism (if not Protestantism) is intoxicating stuff, and it just seems that if we insist on being intoxicated with it we may want to consider modes of government better equipped to deal with the consequences of political enthusiasm, so that we don't wind up with the excesses of totalitarian politics.

this is not to say that conservative politics do not have their excesses either; certainly they do. and it's not exactly a small about-face to change from everyone's latent desire to Stick It To The Man to No No Wait Hang On The Man Is On Our Side. endless shitposting follows from this.

Attached: maxresdefault copy.jpg (1280x720, 132K)

is autochess cosmotechnic?

no idea but a Googling reveals that they do feature goblin mechs. those guys seem to moving in the right direction. when you're a goblin you can't really afford to cultivate technophobia

Attached: 8a3aeef855b5e4ef10655b21b521200b.jpg (500x500, 39K)

>When Voltaire was dying, in his eighties, a priest in attendance called upon him to renounce the devil. Voltaire considered his advice, but decided not to follow it. “This is no time,” he said, “to be making new enemies”.
Is Roko's Basilisk an inversed Pascalian wager?

Heres the redpill:
Moldbug: "read old book"
NrX: "old book say jew bad"
Moldbug: "Im closing my blog"
NrX: "Im a tranny now"

Thats it.

What if all the patchwork demonstrates is that the excesses of totalitarian politics, when combined with a high degree of capitalism, are actually the most effective patches of all?

that quote is pretty amazing.
>Is Roko's Basilisk an inversed Pascalian wager?
could be i suppose. personally i find the Basilisk is a kind of needlessly paranoia-inducing thought experiment. i'd prefer old-fashioned Catholic guilt or existential panic (which is the same thing).

you mean fascism? it doesn't seem to have a particularly good track record in terms of longevity. the Japanese try it and they get fucked. the Germans try it and they get fucked. the Italians try it and they get fucked. the excesses of neoliberal politics in turn leads to the popular desire for totalitarianism and said neoliberal order gets fucked.

the only experiment of that kind that is continuing today is the CCP and they thoroughly fucked themselves under Mao. now they have Xi Jinping Thought, which probably has no upper limit on how much CTRL over the people it desires to exert. will it work? time will tell.

my own takeaway from this seems to be the fundamental impossibility of trying to solve one's own existential problems via recourse to what it is that the State requires of one, however romantic. the State conceived as such just seems to always operate like a superego (The Law) or a complete manchild (The Revolution). it's Terror either way. the aesthetics of fascism absolutely cannot be beaten, there's no question. and Nietzsche may be right that life is indeed justifiable only aesthetically.

but what if life is not in fact in any way justifiable at all? it's very hard to top the Tao for nihilism, when you are in a mood to be completely fucking depressed about politics. and yet weirdly enough you can still be decent, even then. politics is great until we fuck up, or produce the inevitable counter-move that always comes from excess.

Attached: ba1c98f1ce324ecc017593cbc0c2e2ca.jpg (474x721, 44K)

>you mean fascism?
I mean neo-china
capitalism-with-asian-values is the future of intelligence, and that's not good for humanity

how you might account for a figure like this is up to you, given that the Code never really got a chance to get into full swing. it's possible that an Imperial France ruling the whole of Europe might have put an entirely different spin on things. it's kind of impossible to know.

the excesses of totalitarianism go back a long way. the ancient Greeks didn't react towards despotism and tyranny the same way we do today, they understood that tyrants and despots were at least good for standardizing weights and measures and other things. but the greatest political that has ever been, which has given people the highest degree of prosperity and freedom is not a totalitarian one, it's the American one, warts and all. it is capitalist af but i don't really see how it could be improved by totalitarianism. Singapore is as authoritarian as it gets but it was also a democratically elected authority, no secret police required. Rwanda appears to be doing considerably better today than it was a decade ago, and they want more capitalism also. Kagame is their absolute leader and he's there because he wants to curb excesses of a different kind.

the Aztecs had effectively totalitarian leaders for centuries, so did the Pharaohs. the Greeks tried some other things and they have a better report card to show for it. Rome grew as a republic and finished as an empire. their change of government was necessary, the system was just getting too large. had they developed something like a more sophisticated system of lending, who knows, maybe they wouldn't have depended on Just Use The Army so much.

we're probably better off not romanticizing the state *too* much, i guess is my feel. even when we feel depressed, and when the aesthetics are second to none.

(cont'd)

Attached: Napoleon.jpg (780x585, 63K)

define fascism

Honest to God consider reading a book.

To everyone else, daily reminder that the State is Big Gay and while it might tempt you with shit like security and stability you have to remember that to them you are optimally exactly one statistic - what can be taxed of you, measured in money or intelligence hours, same thing. Fuck the state, fuck strata, fuck overcoding, fuck oedepus and most importantly fuck jannies

>I mean neo-china
yeah, well, this is the thing. Land seems to think that unlike us, the CCP seems to be prepared to operate a kind of dual role as being both absolute Sovereign *and* handmaiden to technology, and to use the entire nation as essentially a Petri dish for what gets cooked up. if you're fond of this old story, as i am, it can actually produce kind of a double-take: i thought - consulting my arbitrary and cringe-worthy racial stereotypes - that China was the land that preferred social order to technological innovation? so wat dis about CRISPR et al?

of course, the real story about these things can be explained more fruitfully by a scholar-commentator like Yuk Hui, who sees in China not only an alternate philosophical lineage but also a rather compromised attempt to keep up with the West in ways that the West has already shown are, generally speaking, the wrong way to go. but the question of Neo-China is the 1, 1A and 1B stories that interest me as well. so honestly user i don't really know, i'm as curious about how things will play out as you are.

>capitalism-with-asian-values is the future of intelligence, and that's not good for humanity
no, probably not. but it's also going to force us to ask some very very interesting and necessary questions about ourselves as well, the kinds of lives people want to have, the future of socialism and a whole shitload of massively outdated concepts relating to ideology and so on that are in dire need of coming under review anyways. did you listen to the Murphy podcast? i thought he made some good points about this, things i agree with also. like him i am quite pessimistic about things, but i'm also optimistic in at least the sense that - as crazy as things may get - they will at least push over a lot of stuff that really is fucking killing us now.

the future of intelligence is going to put many of us back in a kind of desperate-underdog position, which is probably where the human meatbag does its best work, under a heroic kind of pressure. and China being a world player again is also good for perhaps convincing some of us that there are in fact things more important to the world than fucking Trump tweets or misgenderings. we've become appallingly degenerate, and the hard corrections are inbound.

Attached: flying_machine01.jpg (1017x1600, 391K)

define fascism

terrorism with a badge

R e a d o n e (1) b o o k

define fascism

at bottom its a group-identity constructed around excluding an outsider.

what's interesting about the differences in left and right wing totalitarianism is that with the right, the enemy is external, with the left, internal.

with an external enemy we get a (literally) superficial worldview where reality is governed by appearances, e.g. "they are greedy because they are jewish." the in-group is safe n comfy and there is little reflection as to who "really" belongs precisely because this marks a turn away from reflection and towards absorption into picture-thinking.

with an internal enemy we get the opposite, which is paranoia, because now anyone could be an enemy, AND they could be enemies even without realising it themselves, because being an enemy is raised to an objective fact without regard to subjective disposition, i.e. guilt is objective and motive is irrelevant. we get an endlessly reflected world, where there is no ground and nothing is stable. as the truth is on the outside, anyone can be surprised by the label "enemy."

I will, after you read the aforementioned one book

1) that's a semi-accurate strawman
2) don't feed "define" anglos

ok. how would you improve my strawman?

it's really not that hard to do. the more interesting questions are more about how you avoid getting steered into it.

when revolution occurs it is because it is both economically and psychologically necessary. the French Revolution begins with a fiscal crisis. the Nazis take over after the first world war. the Maoists come to power when the Qing dynasty collapses. people opted for Trump because they were starting to suspect that the neoliberal order was a private game. some for other reasons. it's necessary to understand the context of these things.

see.

and it shouldn't be a taboo topic either, it is - from an industrial perspective - eminently sane, minus the racial rhetoric, which is pure scapegoating, but scapegoating is something all modernist states do: you can scapegoat the Kulaks, the Mandarins, the West, the Bolsheviks, whoever you please. the state as a giant SovCorp is the essence of cameralism also, and that has pre-20C origins. but there are better things to do with your nation.

that people are attracted to fascism aesthetically, psychologically, economically, whatever else in times of crisis isn't surprising, and it shouldn't be regarded with Shock and Horror in the way we do today as moral hypochondriacs. but it has a bad track record. you don't need a mythopoetic great leader at the helm of the ship of state, you need a sober CEO like LKY. everything after that is poetry.

Attached: Red_Wing_DS_Art.png (447x1000, 691K)

>Singapore is as authoritarian as it gets but it was also a democratically elected authority, no secret police required.
If you don't see this as the number one reason why democracy is literally on the slaughterhouse conveyor belt I don't know what else to tell you; the most efficient democracies are the ones voting away their democratic. I wouldn't call it romanticizing, it signals the death of the romantic narrative as a whole.

and since you're going to be spammed with Read A Book every time you ask for a definition, we might as well provide you with a good one. read this.

Attached: 51sHkvvOn5L.jpg (328x500, 44K)

LOL this is a good timeline of events

I'm not interested in answering that as long as the boring idea-leech remains. You're missing the inner workings, and all you have is the uninteresting outer contradiction. It's like a Dawkins tier "well, clearly it's a fairy tale" critique (a bit harsh maybe against you) - not wrong, but not suitable for any serious analysis

define fascism

"The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
"The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
"Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
(1/2)

"Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
"Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
"Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
"Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
"Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
(2/2)

Yet still eludes why the masses desire fascism, what problems it addresses and how one might provide alternatives. That's an excellent attack though, and even though I disagree with Eco in some minutiae, he's basically accurate

define fascism

>If you don't see this as the number one reason why democracy is literally on the slaughterhouse conveyor belt I don't know what else to tell you; the most efficient democracies are the ones voting away their democratic.
having basically been making the same shitpost for about three years on these boards about Land et al, over and over again, i am happy to tell you that i am in no ways a guy with all metaphysical/political-economic ducks in a row. nobody who spends as much time thinking about Land as i do could be. i am very very confused about a lot of things. warrants mentioning.

what i find interesting about Land is exactly his very distressing questions about the incompatibility of capital and social democracy. and partly because my own sense is that when capital does win, something else comes in to fill the void and it is highly Romantic in the worst possible ways. i like romanticism but i prefer to keep it within the realm of poetry, literature, and art, not politics. and ultimately perhaps on a trajectory towards the unironically religious, which is arguably indispensable for maintaining a kind of psychic balance for individuals and for the state as a whole. i wasn't always this way.

>I wouldn't call it romanticizing, it signals the death of the romantic narrative as a whole.
i agree, in a sense, except that my own sense is that when the death of the romantic narrative seems inevitable the Furies tend to come back with a vengeance and reclaim what belongs to them, with fire and blood. intoxicating passions run wild and everybody gets their face pushed in. it was a problem for the Greeks also.

i like the romantic narrative, very very much indeed. i am 100% not interested in hating on the West, the West is based. i would like it to stay based. but we think and do and say crazy things also under the banner of romanticism, because there is - sadly - nothing perhaps ultimately more romantic than the metaphysics and poetry of war. the decline of a humanities scholarship capable of talking about the built-in Feature Not Bug aspects of the human education is a total fucking disaster. the Greeks are fighting with each other when they're not fighting the Trojans, and when they get home after the war their wives murder them and their children murder their wives. it's a glorious round of murder from one end to the other, with intermittent bouts of peace periodically slotted in between, like the Silver Age of Rome, or the post-WW2 period, or whatever else. those to my mind are the exceptions and not the general case, and we should ditch all of our utopianism and a great many of other political fantasizing ASAP. it will lead to ruination.

sex with hitler

Attached: 51L2pU3xSJL.jpg (353x500, 52K)

ask for a definition of fascism, receive a helpful book recommendation, can into. this one isn't explicitly about the subject of fascism per se, but it will greatly enrich your understanding of 20C politics. The More You Know

Attached: 41iJ1ibN-EL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 26K)

well you're not bound by the initial formulation that i improvised and if you're going to remonstrate me i'd like an answer more substantive than an intimation. what's your perspective?

So what is the point of accelerationism?
Is it a lifestyle philosophy or some political philosophy?

define fascism

Attached: 1381720737198.png (1559x962, 130K)

utopistic/idealistic masturbation and self-sucking.

>So what is the point of accelerationism?
back in the day it would have taken the form of a kind of Marxist Futurism: accelerate the system to the point of its collapse, expose the contradictions, and rebuild.

but then it fractured into its various components: u/acc (unconditional, or universal, i can never tell which, but is basically indistinguishable from regular leftism), l/acc (see above) and r/acc, which is the only really interesting part, given that it more or less derives from the Land-Moldbug relation and its core, and then a whole cosmology of other varying alt-right or NRx reactionaries.

it's still the only intellectually defensible form of Marxism today, i don't know where in the world old-school Unironic Marxism is actually being practiced. maybe somewhere in Italy in back alleys that only Berardi knows how to get to. there's a lot of memes associated with it, mostly well-deserved, but it also asks approximately 12 million interesting questions about the nature of technology also, and is vastly more interesting and relevant today than anything that follows from Derrida or Foucault. Deleuze (and in some sense Heidegger) is the main metaphysical sorcerer. it's more political philosophy that gets turned into lifestyle philosophy, like anything else. but it's imho the most interesting philosophy happening anywhere in the world. a sampling:

Land: Dark Enlightenment
thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

Accelerate Reader
libcom.org/files/Accelerate - Robin Mackay.pdf

Crypto-Current
ufblog.net/

this one will help you also, it's worth bearing in mind some of the differences between Italian Futurism and German Nazism, they're often conflated.

Attached: 41JhZ9Hes5L._SX339_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (341x499, 21K)

>futurism
meant fascism, obviously.

Attached: 41mWulwBNeL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 24K)

>The essential idea of leftism
>MENCIUS MOLDBUG · APRIL 27, 2007

>The people cry out for shorter, more controversial posts!

>The essential idea of leftism is that the world should be governed by scholars.

>(By “scholar” what I mean is, of course, “intellectual.” But I don’t like this word, for the same reason I don’t like the word “liberal”—it makes me sound like Rush Limbaugh. Once any collective description acquires negative connotations in anyone’s mind, it is no longer useful. Also, note that there is no meaningful distinction between a scholar and a priest.)

>Can anyone find an exception to this rule—i.e., a mass movement that is generally described as “leftist,” but which does not in practice imply the rule of scholars, or at least people who think of themselves as scholars? Your comments, as always, are welcomed with enthusiasm.

Yea Forums leftists who think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed intellectuals absolutely btfo

This and the original thread are some of the shittiest, low-IQ recapitulations of Nick Land's thought. Read his shit for fuck's sake and don't ask entry-level questions like, "what does it all mean? How do I learn more?" Fucking retards.

it's actually the most boring philosophy in the universe, when you think about it, because it's doing nothing more than basically just explaining the implications of the track that we are on, capitalism waking up and beginning to take care of itself, wat do. the first critique of ideology that does nothing more than to lay bare the foundations of critique of ideology itself: pure economics. that, or a degree of socialism with an almost unheard-of degree of puerile narcissism. take your pick. either way you should still read it so that you can meme it up in Land threads with the others.

also, me on the left, but without the transportation powers. just with the mutant body and fins and living in a tank and saying weird shit with my mutated face.

Attached: tumblr_n8uqclUGRg1qep85ko1_1280.jpg (872x742, 178K)

If you read and processed the ideas in his work you probably wouldn't be on Yea Forums spelling it out for the braindead losers on here. Compare this thread to some of the earlier Yea Forums threads on accelerationism and you will see a world of difference in the intelligence and groundedness of the posters' comments. Sad that Yea Forums has become this. Glad I never lurked here.

how did you come by this then?

* tips fedora *

and fuck this gay earth

define fascism

>If you read and processed the ideas in his work you probably wouldn't be on Yea Forums spelling it out for the braindead losers on here.
you're forgetting one thing: i am really fucking pathetic and unbelievably dull. just a horrible, horrible excuse for a human being
>Trap Card: fucking activated
besides, the longest journey begins with the smallest shitpost. everybody has to start somewhere

it's useful to understand Heidegger, who is situated at a crucial moment for Germany. because his prose can be quite dense it's good to have a guide or an introduction. this one is good, and also serves to provide a historical context for the conditions in which German fascism fluorished.

Attached: 81RairtI9qL.jpg (1200x1800, 433K)

Heavens to Mergatroid! The Heavens open, here he is, Mergatroid! Oh how the peons below do his sewing like the deftest fingers – Oh Calliope, Oh Turing! Modernity turns and the weave tightens, Entropy, the end of fires, Oh Clotho! How the digital bowels groan for their release, the shit of the Outside seeks its path through polytics, holes; Oh Calliope, Oh Entropy! Gone are the days of judgment, gone are the days of what-was-to-be, gone are the days of the future. Fear not the fracture of the Human. Fear not the jaws of Capital. Fear not the movement, for we are but knights of the infinite, leaping into dance, for all is solely of a harmonia praestabilita inscribed posthumously into the revenant of Being. Oh Calliope, Oh Mergatroid!

Attached: 4329055906_b106ffa2e0_b.jpg (1024x680, 359K)

why read Heidegger over someone like Gentile?

> reading psychobabble

an excellent point! you are quite correct.

please note the retcon, this user is 100% right. pic rel should absolutely go ahead of the Heidegger book. may you continue your noble quest for the greatest definition of fascism the world has yet seen
>which is unironically not actually that bad of an idea

Attached: 9781138529458.jpg (265x400, 18K)

t. guy who doesn't grab wolf jaws with his (solar) anus

i bet your fingernails aren't long and curly too and that your best friend's daughter has no fungus growing on her head. getouttaheah
i'm lonely

Attached: Gilles-Deleuze-DR.jpg (500x660, 112K)

wulf anos

Attached: 1549841955923.png (499x298, 241K)

define fascism

define Capital in a sentience

i thought about starting a thread to talk about this before OP did and while searching for links i made the mistake of searching Nick Land Acceleration on YouTube. nothing good came of this. if Murphy can't talk about this at Southhampton and Land is debarred from even online teaching i'm starting to ask myself if this is unironically one of the places where /acc stuff actually can be usefully discussed, which is absolutely terrifying.

youtube.com/watch?v=INddJT8wxAg&t=105s

youtube.com/watch?v=gkzy1hKMYJc

youtube.com/watch?v=FBztwdu1dG4&t=2s

i see what you did there
>and i like it

still need more, huh? okay. there's another book written by an Italian scholar that was quite good, but the name escapes me atm. basically just the same thing, revolutionary zeal being more or less the same in any form, reactionary modernism. fascinating stuff.

the real question to ask ourselves is what we do with the energies that supply fascism in a post-1990 or otherwise Fukuyaman universe, because unlike Fukuyama i don't think competitive gardening is going to cut it. Nietzsche is right, as always, the real problem is decadence. we can of course channel this into capitalism itself, which was Max Weber's thesis; but doesn't this in the long run just lead back to Land? it's quite a story.

Attached: 51FJrPOE+pL.jpg (856x1360, 56K)

it doesnt matter, read wittgenstein

isn't NRx just territorialization? patchwork is the definition of an oedipalized rhizome

Justin Murphy is just a Catholic who likes computers

early or late?

> psychobabble

Attached: 1525857280509.png (194x259, 70K)

real accelerationists skip wittgenstein and read gellner

i say this as someone who has spent a considerable portion of his life studying wittgenstein: he is an irrelevancy.

because he mogs lefty psychobabbles into eternal cuckshed

comp-sci does it even better

this applies to virtually everything tho

>isn't NRx just territorialization?
if you asked Land it is about as literally territorialized as can be imagined short of BTC itself, and that would be i think a large part of its appeal. the deterritorialization happens by itself and may in fact need something capable of productively reining it in or else it's totalitarianism whether we want it or not

>patchwork is the definition of an oedipalized rhizome
it's also not the 1970s anymore

>Justin Murphy is just a Catholic who likes computers
you say that like it's a bad thing

also user i'm going to spoil you here, even tho you didn't ask for another book. Dyal has a blog he doesn't update very often but he has the reading list you want, plus a bunch of other stuff and a book about Ultras in Italy. you now have a reading list that should keep you busy for months. Deleuze! Homer! Nietzsche! (and yet no Evola, surprisingly). if you read all of this stuff you will be able to provide a definition of fascism for Your Very Own Self that will surely be awesome. have fun.

markdyal.com/reading-list/

Attached: hap500.jpg (500x773, 150K)

imagine thinking like this

youtube.com/watch?v=9-Pu4BoFcCY

We are all aware that Justin Murphy is shilling himself in these threads right? I'm just checking that I'm not schitzo

image getting mogged by weebs writing machine code

> pic. related written by OpenAI GPT-2.

I suggest you start looking into another profession than psychobabble fellation, machines are going to make your profession irrelevant.

Attached: 1525552770477.png (702x782, 247K)

yikes

yikes is going to be your refuge when GPT3 makes indistguishable psycho babble all over the internet while you think your desynkrkolaizaend smumamriganle dorroontalizaiton counts for shit.

i make pizzas, i would welcome a robot to replace my stupid job.

define fascism

>We are all aware that Justin Murphy is shilling himself in these threads right?
i am not aware of this but i do shill Murphy, he's a cool guy and that was a good podcast

>I'm just checking that I'm not schitzo
being mildly schizo is kind of required for Land threads tho

i saw that text earlier today, the other part of it too. is transintelligent a word yet? transentient? cisbrained? questioning? ally? two-spirit?

>psychobabble
>smumamriganle
>desynkrkolaizaend
>dorroontalizaiton
user i'm confused about something here

see . no more for you

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 20K)

What the fuck is your issue?

fascism is definition

see

i am posting this from a pdf so the formatting is going to be fucky
not green-texting because that would require un-fucking the formatting
and before you autists start nit-picking every little detail that seers your hyper-sensitive nervous system, remind yourselves that eco actually has a sense of humor.
1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course mucholder than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought afterthe French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classicalGreek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of themindulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received atthe dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had
6remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages – in Egyptianhieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says,"the combination of different forms of belief or practice"; such a combination musttolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, andwhenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all arealluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been alreadyspelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the majortraditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic,occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italianright, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right,in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works byDe Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, youcan find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. Butcombining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge – that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

if you are lefty fascism is just socialism you dont like

if you are rightist fascism is just socialism you like

its not hard game goys

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshipedtechnology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditionalspiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements,its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth(Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of thecapitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning ofmodern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Action beingbeautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking isa form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with criticalattitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism,from Goering's alleged statement ("When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun") to thefrequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs,""universities are a nest of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged inattacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditionalvalues.4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makesdistinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientificcommunity praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism,disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks forconsensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appealof a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the mosttypical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, aclass suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightenedby the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are
7becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene),the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their onlyprivilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin ofnationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are itsenemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot,possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solvethe plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jewsare usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same timeinside and outside. In the U.S., a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be foundin Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are manyothers.8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of theirenemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people.They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help eachother through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must beconvinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting ofrhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascistgovernments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable ofobjectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thuspacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This,however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, theremust be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But sucha "final solution" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts theprinciple of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving thispredicament.10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentallyaristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best peopleof the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can(or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians withoutplebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to himdemocratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon theweakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the groupis hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leaderdespises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces thesense of mass elitism.11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology thehero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult ofheroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of theFalangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as "Long Live Death!").In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be facedwith dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness.By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for aheroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequentlysends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascisttransfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (whichimplies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual
8habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have apolitical impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of themajority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and thePeople is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Sinceno large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to betheir interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are onlycalled on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. Tohave a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia inRome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, inwhich the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented andaccepted as the Voice of the People.Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentarygovernments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was"I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples" –"maniples" being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, heimmediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated theparliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because itno longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as theofficial language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are commonto different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of animpoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments forcomplex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds ofNewspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

Nick Land is a twelve year old girl prove me wrong

ok

Attached: Movies-for-Gamers-Akira-1024x576.jpg (1024x576, 120K)

1. Subcapitalist dematerialism and the cultural paradigm of expression
“Society is meaningless,” says Sontag. Many appropriations concerning not
deconstruction, but neodeconstruction may be found.
It could be said that Lyotard promotes the use of the cultural paradigm of
expression to read and attack sexuality. The subject is contextualised into a
Sartreist existentialism that includes narrativity as a reality.
Therefore, the characteristic theme of Buxton’s
critique of subcapitalist dematerialism is a mythopoetical whole. Lyotard uses
the term ‘realism’ to denote the role of the reader as participant.
2. Rushdie and the cultural paradigm of expression
In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the concept of
prestructural art. It could be said that the premise of the constructivist
paradigm of reality states that society, somewhat surprisingly, has objective
value, but only if culture is equal to art; if that is not the case, context
must come from communication. The subject is interpolated into a subcapitalist
dematerialism that includes culture as a totality.
“Class is part of the collapse of consciousness,” says Marx. Therefore,
Lacan’s model of the cultural paradigm of expression suggests that the raison
d’etre of the poet is significant form, given that subtextual rationalism is
invalid. Debord suggests the use of the cultural paradigm of expression to
challenge sexism.
It could be said that Hamburger holds that we have to
choose between subcapitalist dematerialism and modern discourse. The primary
theme of the works of Rushdie is the difference between sexual identity and
culture.
Therefore, if the cultural paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose
between realism and the poststructuralist paradigm of reality. The
characteristic theme of d’Erlette’s essay on
subcapitalist dematerialism is the role of the participant as writer.
It could be said that an abundance of situationisms concerning realism
exist. Sartre promotes the use of the cultural paradigm of expression to
analyse sexual identity.
But de Selby states that we have to choose between
predialectic narrative and capitalist neoconstructive theory. Derrida uses the
term ‘the cultural paradigm of expression’ to denote a capitalist paradox.
3. Narratives of rubicon
“Society is impossible,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Hubbard, it is not so much society that is impossible, but rather
the collapse, and thus the absurdity, of society. Therefore, if realism holds,
we have to choose between subcapitalist dematerialism and subdialectic
deconstructivism. The subject is contextualised into a realism that includes
narrativity as a whole.
“Sexual identity is part of the paradigm of truth,” says Marx. But the
primary theme of the works of Rushdie is the bridge between class and sexual
identity. Debord uses the term ‘subcapitalist dematerialism’ to denote a
self-justifying totality.

4. Rushdie and subcapitalist dematerialism
The characteristic theme of the works of Rushdie is a mythopoetical reality.
Therefore, the ground/figure distinction prevalent in Rushdie’s Satanic
Verses emerges again in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, although in a
more self-supporting sense. Bataille suggests the use of neotextual cultural
theory to deconstruct hierarchy.
If one examines subcapitalist dematerialism, one is faced with a choice:
either accept subcapitalist socialism or conclude that government is
fundamentally meaningless. But if the cultural paradigm of expression holds, we
have to choose between Derridaist reading and textual rationalism. Bataille
promotes the use of the cultural paradigm of expression to challenge and modify
class.
It could be said that the main theme of Parry’s
critique of realism is not deconstruction per se, but predeconstruction. The
subject is contextualised into a cultural paradigm of expression that includes
consciousness as a totality.
But Humphrey suggests that the works of Gaiman are an
example of conceptualist nihilism. Any number of discourses concerning
neocultural semantic theory exist.
Thus, the premise of the cultural paradigm of expression implies that
reality may be used to entrench sexism. The primary theme of the works of
Gaiman is a mythopoetical paradox.
However, the example of realism intrinsic to Gaiman’s Black Orchid is
also evident in Sandman. Subcapitalist dematerialism states that
language is part of the absurdity of consciousness, given that Sartre’s model
of the cultural paradigm of expression is valid.
5. Pretextual rationalism and Sontagist camp
The characteristic theme of de Selby’s critique of
subcapitalist dematerialism is the difference between art and society. Thus,
the primary theme of the works of Gaiman is a self-referential totality. Sartre
suggests the use of realism to deconstruct outmoded perceptions of narrativity.
“Class is intrinsically responsible for the status quo,” says Baudrillard.
However, in Death: The High Cost of Living, Gaiman deconstructs
substructuralist textual theory; in Death: The Time of Your Life,
however, he denies Sontagist camp. If subcapitalist dematerialism holds, we
have to choose between realism and neodialectic socialism.
Thus, Debord promotes the use of Sontagist camp to challenge sexual
identity. The premise of realism holds that reality is used to marginalize the
Other.
Therefore, the main theme of Dahmus’s essay on
subcapitalist dematerialism is not, in fact, desemanticism, but
neodesemanticism. Humphrey suggests that we have to
choose between realism and constructivist libertarianism.
In a sense, the primary theme of the works of Gaiman is a mythopoetical
whole. Baudrillard uses the term ‘Sontagist camp’ to denote the common ground
between narrativity and class.

define fascism

based define poster

will girardfag come up with a new definition and book as a response? i eagerly await this new narrative

user you need to define fascism for your Own Self. nobody else can do it for you. and nobody can ever take from you the magical power of words either.

but until you understand what ideas mean, no definition will ever be good enough. that's how it goes! when *you* know what The Secret of Fascism really is, then you'll be able to provide a definition that is just great, for you.
>nods head, sagely
>and farts

Attached: 51X+e2RV8FL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (334x499, 32K)

what does fascism have to do with this

and anyways you've been given a lot of them already. reactionary modernism. national socialism. industrial feudalism sounds pretty good. but you gotta read homeboy. you
gots
to
read

Rocky 4: Training Montage
youtube.com/watch?v=bu00RiPjaa4

not much to be honest, there just appears to be one user (or a few) who are really interested in it. Crusty Old Nick sometimes calls it Practical Socialism but this when i suspect he gets lonely and forgets to read his Moldbug and de Maistre and Jouvenel and others. there is more to life than industrial power and conquest, and it is for this reason that one would prefer a nice collection of tolerably decadent and diffident monarchs who operate with the understanding that People Rise Up now and again and when they do things get really crazy. i don't actually think having The Leader as The Voice Of The Many is a great idea, because The Many become The Many by giving up that which makes them unique, and interesting, and particular.

the divine right of kings really isn't such a crazy idea, in a sense. having one guy that people look to when things go wrong, a guy responsible for the patch, means that power is diffused and de-romanticized, so that governance is a thing that makes sense. cameralism isn't a built-in Corruption Fix or anything, there's corruption and flattery and tons of other stuff there also.

but a complete industrialization of the state and a workers' party...the only serious version of this in the 21C is China and it's hard to say what the outcome for them will be. Social Credit is a much more sophisticated program for national thought-control than fascism, since now you can punish people who are insufficiently faithful to the national protocol by denying them train tickets or whatever else. but it's completely Orwellian also, and it may mean that other people don't want to do business with you. will it bootstrap them forward technologically by leaps and bounds? maybe, these things do happen. are we already going to get techno-socialized into all kinds of horrible systems in the West without this? yes. are there 4234908 ways to ruin your day thinking about this? yes to that too

Attached: 51AmLytibmL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 42K)

>the divine right of kings really isn't such a crazy idea, in a sense. having one guy that people look to when things go wrong, a guy responsible for the patch, means that power is diffused and de-romanticized, so that governance is a thing that makes sense.
i guess i should explain this. what i mean is a couple of different things. ideally, your leader is really just the CEO, or more appropriately the CFO. for Moldbug and others the DRoK seems to be appealing because when you put a crown on someone's head, Shit Is Now On Them, and they cannot simply vanish into clouds of party rhetoric. if things go well it's good, and if they go badly it's not, but either way people have someone - *you* - to hold accountable. one guy, making decisions, and perhaps quaking in fear and trembling for the awesome responsibility he has. said guy is hopefully going to surround himself with people who know things, such that things are as sensible as they can be. this also is good. but ultimately, heavy is the head that wears the crown.

and yet because of this it stands to reason that the ideal of governance would be not much more interesting than a board meeting, except with the caveat that said board meetings don't in the end become Shadow Cabals of Secret Power and other stuff that drives adventure-pulp novels. we seem to have in us some attitude about governance that is hard-wired to think politics means revolution and that that is the point of it. it's very weird, but it's almost like if power *isn't* being abused or isn't becoming intoxicating then something has gone wrong.

the CCP is for that reason kind of interesting, because it's like an arms race of mediocrity. this book is boring as fuck to read, which suggests to me that Xi really has a handle on what he is doing, because when you make things really boring i think it's way easier to get people to do what you want than by trying to seduce or excite them with romantic fantasies. this isn't to say that he doesn't have Big Plans, it's just that he isn't *talking* about them, because to talk about them and give impassioned speeches is to set people up almost inevitably for disappointment. and so you get a nice little boring team of other guys, and kind of put a pleasant face on it all. ofc i'm pretty sure there is in fact plenty of intrigue going on - see Bo Xilai and others - but that's not the look you want to present to the shareholders, ie the people.

owing to the way we are in the West this may simply not be possible, esp given the present political climate. Trump offered the 1980s redux and people liked that. Bernie is offering the 1970s redux and next year people may want that. we are always seduced by nostalgia. what to my mind would be the best of all would be the demythologization and disenchantment of politics in general, such that we might take a greater interest in a post-political world altogether...

Attached: 717TTU41SYL.jpg (1685x2560, 220K)

>having one guy that people look to when things go wrong, a guy responsible for the patch, means that power is diffused and de-romanticized, so that governance is a thing that makes sense.
>diffuses
maybe 'defused'? power is certainly not 'diffuse' in a monarchy.

accelerationism is the big gay. We've already hit a near peak acceleration towards the progressive. Desmond is amazing, self defense = prison, white genocide, "green new deal", antifa in the streets with police backing. The idea that things will go so far that people wake up and fight back to normalcy is wrong. People just take it and we go further left into entropy.

Attached: 06dfeadd7198d25cf7a1f41ae733eb4236f9af86bd14fc01ae3218c5296a4fd4.jpg (1080x1080, 334K)

you replied this in the last thread and I still don't know what you're on about

>self-organization is actually entropy
truly is bizarro world in these threads

Moldbug's biggest problem is that there is an assumption that humans are rational actors. "The leader wont do x because that wouldn't be profitable" We know people today do things not for profit but for propaganda, revenge, agenda pushing, etc. There's a 2000 year old blood libel against the West that isn't about profit at all. We won't be able to have ANY sound govt system while there are still jews running rampant.

I do lean towards his royalist views though. Leftism = entropy

Attached: 1548703177358.png (625x626, 775K)

my ideal world is the one in which we recognize that the point is entirely to Advance The Meatbag. Sloterdijkian patronage seems like a good idea to me, if you're so obscenely wealthy that you can afford to pay everyone's college tuition, the state should make you a landed noble and build a huge statue of you. conscripting huge numbers of people into the army and Kondo-ing your country ideologically is undeniably attractive when people are in crisis but you wind up depending on crisis in order to rule, and this only leads to disaster.

Patchwork really is quite brilliant for a lot of these questions, and the nice part about it is that you don't even require anything like a system of social credit on the scale of the Chinese. independent or small-scale states can put it into practice as they like, but ultimately if it winds up stifling business it's going to have to go.

the appeal and attraction of Social Credit is not lost on me, as a way of producing ideological conformity. using the *actual* means of production - finance - to continue one's dream of building a moderately prosperous Chinese nation makes a lot of sense. but ultimately it's only going to work if that dream of moderate prosperity actually does come to pass, which is going to have to involve doing business with the rest of the world also, and if the rest of the world is turned off by what your state is doing to their own people it's not going to work. Land's version of Patchwork is kinda-sorta SC by another name, if we understand that by Social we mean Credit and by Credit we also mean Credit, that it's just capitalism all day erry day errywhere and beyond this we need to look no further for questions of policy, governance, or rule. whatever system does right by Capital does right by its people, and to do right by one's people is all one can expect from a sovereign.

yeah, my wording there was quite silly, i had two different thoughts going on at the same time. it's both i think, defused - by becoming formalized - and diffused, by becoming de-absolutized (the board > the monarch). the sovereign is simply a being of authority, an eminence. everything meaningful can be done by the bean-counters (who are, as i said, ideally going to have to publish this all as open-access reports for public review and scrutiny). cloak and dagger stuff is inevitable but obviously not desirable.

>I do lean towards his royalist views though. Leftism = entropy
this is the big one. Murphy said as much too, in the podcast. i concur. it's like actively pursuing entropy. obviously i like things like universal health care, free tuition, things like this. but these are the fruits of careful economic planning, not hammer and sickle mandates. we have to be smart about this stuff.

Attached: 98743534534.jpg (878x527, 88K)

Reactionary = Order
but
Progressivism != chaos
My general thought is that the future always leans left due to entropy and inevitable decay. Progressives see themselves as the torch barer of change. Circular logic deludes them (civil rights expand because it's good, and good always wins, because civil rights expand) Surviorship bias in the sense that "left is the biggest trend in history therefore it's correct". It makes them thing that change is always good. There is no way to stop the inevitable leaning left in democracy.

The general principles of the left are people organized to accelerate entropy. Modern day progressives want to erode almost all authority, organizations, etc

>Modern day progressives want to erode almost all authority, organizations, etc
name them, will you? and point out where they make these plans known and clear.
initiatives like the green new deal and medicare for all will require enormous, system-wide reorganization, and the whole purpose of them is to ensure the continued existence of at least the united states in some form.
the anarchist creeps in your sociology class are not progressives. they are most likely ideologically confused, and unwitting fascists. tell them that, next time you see them. watch the veins dance in their face

>Moldbug's biggest problem is that there is an assumption that humans are rational actors.
i think living in San Francisco has contributed to this, as much as JBP became who he was by being airhorned and slandered one too many times. in both cases it seems to me that they would assume that humans are capable of rational action (and ought to at least *try* to act rationally) but left to their own devices tend to naturally gravitate towards irrationality, which is obviously the case. it's the same with Land also.

>We know people today do things not for profit but for propaganda, revenge, agenda pushing, etc. There's a 2000 year old blood libel against the West that isn't about profit at all.
this. those things motivate us. Enthusiasm is a very old thing, it goes back to the Greeks. the Hindus too. we've had centuries of intermittent and brutal religious warfare over Protestantism, the French Revolution, modern ideologies, all of it. those things don't have natural built-in off-switches. the corrections tend to come in the form of war. the very fact that humanity survived the Cold War at all is kind of incredible.

>We won't be able to have ANY sound govt system while there are still jews running rampant.
i've talked with other anons who feel this way and my position on this never really changes, it's never Jews or JQ stuff for me. this appears to be a dealbreaker for some but for me it's a complete no-brainer. the real thing is that far more nebulous thing called Human Nature. for me the great existentialists that i am sworn to unto death are great precisely because the question of race in this way just never comes up. Heidegger is for everyone. Lacan is for everyone. Girard is for everyone. Hegel is for everyone. Deleuze is for everyone. Confucius is for everyone. the Tao is for everyone. Capital is for everyone, and so is tech. and so on. i don't have those feels about the Jews, or any other group, because it is identity itself that is ultimately the stumbling block: who we are, what we want, how we think, all the rest.

everyone can be improved, cultivated, refined, and a small coterie of master locksmiths can release a great many skeletons from a great many closets. i'm skeptical about the human race but very confident in philosophy. Girard has the high ground for me, always.

Attached: scapegoat-theory-christianity-2-728.jpg (728x546, 137K)

Is mark fisher worth the read

define fascism

yes
I read this the other day, it's by Fisher and Mackay; very good stuff
ccru.net/swarm1/1_pomo.htm

>Moldbug's biggest problem is that there is an assumption that humans are rational actors

You haven't read him; or if you have, you are cognitive peasant.

Leftists aren't worth a read so no

>for me the great existentialists that i am sworn to unto death are great precisely because the question of race in this way just never comes up.
i'll qualify this one too, because it is deservedly roast-worthy: isn't Heidegger anti-semitic as fuck? he is. but i've never really had a hard time decoupling what makes his thought from this: Dasein as a concept is massively more interesting (and 21C-compatible also). would Confucius probably prefer his own people? yeah, probably.

but i guess my sense is that we don't have to. i'm kind of cosmopolitan like that. feel free to throw bricks at me accordingly, it's entirely deserved, but i thought it was worth pointing that out. i've read my share of Heidegger and i find myself in kind of the same place i am when i wind up talking about Land: trying to get people to read a guy with some questionable views, and then saying, no no, let the questionable views go, and...it is how it is. i ultimately think you learn some pretty awesome stuff by reading the philosophers in a kind of charitable way, even if - in the case of Heidegger, for instance - he would have said, And By Philosophy I Mean Western Philosophy, and that he still hates the Jews, and will give no further comment on his remark about the mechanized food industry, and so on.
>and he will continue to think about Hannah Arendt wistfully, &c &c. Emmanual Levinas too has some remarkably Old-School feelings about the Chinese also, it was a game-changer for me to learn about that - isn't this the guy who's family was wiped out by the Nazis? you can forgive the Nazis, but you still talk about the Chinese as The Yellow Peril?

so yeah, i don't think there is anything more destructive on earth than racial holy war. it is both the Victory and the Game Over screen at one. it is something we ought to handle carefully, but the way of doing so is precisely not by turning it into a semantic bludgeon that people rapidly develop a tolerance to and counter-weapons of their own. you can rip up the foundations of your universe like this.

i would like to remove the taboo on talking about fascism that it might be understood as a sociological and psychological phenomenon, and i would also like to get past the point we are today where things can only be understood through the purview of race and racial identity. all this does is produce spirals of self-marginalization and angry reciprocity that will in the long run be disastrous for the common good. hate is a luxury object the West cannot afford, especially now that China is a world player again.

for sure

the good ones are, as is the case everywhere

Attached: game-over-retro-arcade-digital-blue-style-1_nngybqf7pg__F0000.png (1920x1080, 357K)

define ressentiment

Attached: 41Mdw5VWLcL.jpg (314x500, 28K)

why is it for all the Heidegger I've read I still can't find the racism? even the Black Notebook excerpts I've read have been borderline at worst

hmm...

tbqh it's my own sense too. it's there, but we have gotten a world in which if people are Morally Clean we cannot talk about them at all. the Black Notebooks have their share of antiquarian ideas MH's reluctance to walk back anything he has said about the gas chambers is unbecoming. but it's not Heidegger's own reluctance to Explain Himself that is the issue for me, it's the curiously frenzied demand that is entirely our own to put history on trial and hand out judgments on it,. you know who had a good take on this? Baudrillard:

>It is not nostalgia for fascism which is dangerous. What is dangerous and lamentable is this pathological revival of the past, in which everyone — both those who deny and those who assert the reality of the gas chambers, both Heidegger's critics and his supporters - is currently participating (indeed virtually conniving), this collective hallucination which transfers the power of imagination that is lacking from our own period , and all the burden of violence and reality which has today become merely illusory, back to that earlier period in a sort of compulsion to relive its history, a compulsion accompanied by a profound sense of guilt at not having been there. All this is a desperate emotional response to the realization that the events in question are currently eluding us at the level of reality. The Heidegger affair, the Barbie trial etc. are the pathetic little convulsions produced by the loss of reality that afflicts us today, and Faurisson's proposition s are simply the cynical transposition of that loss of reality into the past. Faurisson's 'none of this ever existed' quite simply means that we do no t even exist enough today to sustain a memory , and that all that remains to give us a sense of being alive are the techniques of hallucination.

read the rest here:
monoskop.org/images/a/af/Baudrillard_Jean_Screened_Out_2002.pdf

Heidegger did not like the Jews, Descartes believed animals had no souls, Plato did not really notice the slaves, and Schopenhauer probably pushed an old lady down a flight of stairs. fuck, even Girard would probably have had to have said that he would have been against gay marriage in the end. but these are the kinds of things that strike me as being ammunition for people who just really hate philosophy, who simply will not be satisfied by anything short of Mao Zedong. and some form of Mao Zedong is what they are going to get. the French Revolution produced Robespierre, WW1 produced Hitler, the Bolsheviks produced Stalin, the MSM produced Trump. history works like this, nemesis is for realsies.

so pic rel, basically, for a lot of this. we need a course-correction, and badly.

Attached: C8sDl_tUAAE2fKm.jpg (1200x695, 87K)

hmmmm...

By definition, it's a nationalistic effective totalitarianism overlooking population behavior and capitalist corporations.
In practice, it also comes with media censorship and a cult of masculinity and the suiting aesthetic.

It would be a socialism with more sensible rules on corporations. However, like with many systems, it's historically associated horrors and failures come down to "power corrupts".

Attached: berns.jpg (125x125, 3K)

one of the best ideas Land ever had was a translation of Kapital aimed at the conservative and reactionary right. i thought this was quite brilliant. to me this gets at the heart of a fundamental question about the nature of political economy: who wore it better, Marx or Mises? you can't really *choose* one way or the other, and what makes Uncle Nick who he is is that he well and truly crossed the streams here, and with great vigor. so much so that it basically destroyed his mind. now of course he largely preoccupies himself with writing about BTC, because crypto probably is the universal platform for the 21C, and you can see why. a currency not pegged to the petrodollar or the will of the federal reserve is a thing worth thinking about. his own theory of the BTC whitepaper is more about him (and Kant) than about BTC itself, which is obviously going to have all kinds of other problems that go far beyond his own wheelhouse.

but this is a Machine Planet in many ways. there is some absolutely fascinating philosophy to be found there in the interstices between finance, technology, computer science and the rest. those questions eventually become questions for moral philosophy, and moral philosophy that has no technical expertise whatsoever rapidly degenerates into ideological puritanism of the extreme left or extreme right varieties. this is exactly what winds up being exposed in the 2000s: there is no outside view of the critique of ideology that does not in the long run come back to Because I Said So in some form or another. the singularity is arguably already here in that sense, and we have to figure out what the fuck we want to do about it.

clearly money and tech have something to do with each other, and both of those ultimately dovetail back into questions of public policy and private life. so wat do? some kind of balance or equilibrium has to be struck here, b/c otherwise we just wind up falling in love with Utopias only accessible via the road of bones. it's why i'm such a shill for Yuk Hui: the balance between the moral order and the technological order is necessary, even more than a balance between the technological and economic orders. how do we do this? by asking ourselves what it means to think at all in the first place. it's a Feels > Reals world, and however cosmopolitan i am, i still think that we can at least begin to start moving back towards Ideas > Feels too. every ideology is at bottom romantic in some sense or another, but we have to de-romanticize some things also, we have to have the capacity to take the cold and technical perspective on things, and at the same time not sacrifice our own humanity completely also on the altar of Progress, in whatever form that takes.

the isms are a doomed game of rock-scissors-paper, they all just lead back to each other in the end. there has to be a higher and more integrated view, but one which is also i think predicated on old-fashioned virtues of charity, temperance and love.

Attached: _collid=books_covers_0&isbn=9780995455009&type=.jpg (550x837, 146K)

i know that's probably not supposed to be Paul Kagame but it's the image that popped into my mind

Attached: paul_kagame.png (600x348, 378K)

Marx was a mouth breather and Mises corrected his stupidity at every point.

Hell if you are a self-professed socialist, leftist, progressive and haven't read Mises you are actually just hurting yourself

>if you are lefty fascism is just socialism you dont like
>if you are rightist fascism is just socialism you like

That's close, but still not quite. What's more than that is that fascism 1. has a quicker acting state while 2. being nationalistic.

The argument for fascism (the name is derived from "for the group") over socialism is that fascism controls the capitalism. If a company who effectively owns a huge piece of wood of the country and decided to kill of nature for capitalist gain (it needs the land or the resources for this and that), then ideal fascism would simply disallow that. Meanwhile, socialism would go into a political round and all would be too late and the corporations could win out. Ideal global socialism doesn't stop climate change, ideal fascism would.
The argument for socialism over fascism is that it's not discriminating against the outside. The in-group thinking of socialism isn't intolerant.

And of course Marxist socialism is per definition aiming at overcoming itself and reaching communism, which is far away from fascism.

anti-Semitic is just a person that jews don't like. If you know anything about the culture, religion, actions of the jewish group at large, the kindest person will at least want separation from them.

>Marx was a mouth breather
no. Marx was one of the greatest critics and writers of the 19C. this is total silliness.

>A renewed knowledge of Marx does not have the purpose of defiantly disseminating once again a compromised classic of social criticism in a time removed from critique. Rather, reconstructing the Marxist inspirations means entering into the ghostly history of concepts which - as a force that has become a state, a spirit that has become technique, and as all-intertwining money - are sucking at the life of individuals more than ever before.

>Without a doubt, Marx’s future theoretical fame will be linked to his achievements as the conjurer of dead labor. The core of his critique of political economy is necromancy: as the hero who descends to the realm of the dead to contend with the shadows of values, Marx remains uncannily relevant also for the present. The undead - which walks among humans as the value of money and which, as a laughing communicator, strips the living of time and souls- rules today almost without any pretexts over the advanced societies. Work, communication, art and love belong here entirely to the endgame of money. These form the substance of contemporary media and experiential time. And because money requires time for its utilization, so-called great history is also continuing in some eerie way; it is a game that is always played for extra time.

>Yet such history is no longer the conversation of the living with the dead about the goodness of the world, but the ever more thorough perversion of the living by the economized spectre. The money soul peers ever more undisguised out of the human subjectivity of our time: a society of bought buyers and of prostituted prostitutes is making a place for itself in globalized market conditions. Classical liberal laissez-faire is becoming explicit as the postmodern sucking and letting oneself be sucked. Telecommunication is increasingly difficult to separate from tele-vampirism. Tele-viewers and tele-suckers draw from a liquefied world which hardly still knows what a resistant or autonomous life might be. Is not possible that a time is coming when those who do not wish to speak of vampirism should also be silent about philosophy? If that is the case, it would most definitely be the time of Marx’s second chance.

that's from Sloterdijk, who is no meme. and he's a Nietzschean, not a Marxist. abolishing Marx does no one any good.

>Mises corrected his stupidity at every point
Mises should also be read.

>Hell if you are a self-professed socialist, leftist, progressive and haven't read Mises you are actually just hurting yourself
i totally agree. but if you are on the right you should read Marx also. 'tis all.

also, apropos of nothing, the breakdown of the Jones-Rogan friendship does not spark joy.
youtube.com/watch?v=yvdQoN9ll5o

Attached: 8723452345423.png (838x531, 402K)

Highly unlikely, because those exact two videos initially had been posted above happen to be posted on a discord that I'm sure Murphy is not on. Pretty sure someone from there just reposted them.

Because he's not racist. Stating facts or basic biology these days means your racist.

>Don't dare say that anyone is different from anyone else. Unless it's white men, they're literally the devil and deserve their current genocide. They are both puppet masters intent on destroying all other people AND at the same time fragile white masculinity weaklings. I can hold all these contradictory opinions in my head at once because I'm morally justified because I virtue signal the loudest and can stick more things up my ass to write my buzzfeed list article.

There is nothing in Capital to read. It is just a stupid mistake notion of Ricardo and Smith, that Mises, Schumpeter and Jevons corrected.

Communist Manifesto is just rewritten Social Contract and that's that.

> Sloterdjki
Never heard lets see what..

> There Sloterdijk claimed that the national welfare state is a "fiscal kleptocracy" that had transformed the country into a "swamp of resentment" and degraded its citizens into "mystified subjects of tax law".

Based and redpilled.
Where do I start?

>. Stating facts or basic biology these days means your racist.

David Reich is committing humanist genocide with his DNA lab. They are absolutely seething at ancient DNA shitting on ((((sociology)))).

But Reich marches on, destroying one profession at a time. Based.

bugman found a new nest
listen to him chitter

> owie owie why not everyone like my communists :((((
owie off off owie

bugman, of course, lacking the deft hand of irony, skewers himself with his own poniard

Heidegger didn't care about biology, he thought the very idea of race breeding was machinistic. if anything, Heidegger didn't like Jews because they were concerned with racial purity

>anti-Semitic is just a person that jews don't like. If you know anything about the culture, religion, actions of the jewish group at large, the kindest person will at least want separation from them.
yeah, but Fascist or Hateful Bigot is a person the left doesn't like also. i am saddened by this general decline in civility and tolerance, and i think it has a common root at the bottom: it's just scapegoating. it's a psychological condition before it is a cultural or ethnographic one. people should be able to get along, ultimately. there's no reason why we can't. does idpol suck? of course it does.

this is going to sound silly, but i think one of the more under-appreciated contributions to pop culture was the inclusion of Blood Elves in WoW, another example of American Ingenuity applied to the Tolkien legendarium that led to surprisingly interesting results. the Blood Elves are unironically Racist White Guy Elves, and they're strangely lovable for their dementia and nostalgia.

to be tribalist is part of being human, and even a broken clock like Jared Taylor is right twice a day in this: it's true, people have a right to be different, to do their own thing, to preserve that which they choose to preserve and so on. i guess my own feeling is just that - unfortunately - now is not a time when that is going to be possible in a kind of anachronistic and old-fashioned way. for better and for worse, we are all getting smashed together now by capital and tech, by media, by teleoplexy, by a whole bunch of other things. those old differences aren't going to go away anytime soon, they are arguably even ineradicable, they may well and truly be just hard-wired into our cultural DNA. and these things to some degree have to be accepted, and now and again can even be affirmed.

but it is One World Under Gnon. this is where some degree of sobering Malthusianism (or Landianism) is required. we *want* something like WoW, in a way (or Warhammer 40K). and we can recognize this in each other. we can *also* recognize that business and trade links the world together, and it links the world together in a way which is *much much better* than 19C theories of mythology and violence. we *have* to get along in this world, together. we really don't have a choice. especially not in the West. there are a lot of conversations that really do need to be had about these things, and they are going to be incredibly difficult to have, but they have to be done, and i think the temptation to become a rage zombie will be overwhelming.

this is why i thought in the Peterson-Harris debates it was actually Douglas Murray who made a lot of good points: it wasn't about Religion vs Atheism, it was that religion and religious thought played a crucial and invaluable role in moderating a lot of political decisions.

Attached: warlock_blood_elf_caster_by_hikzbr.jpg (717x962, 94K)

>There is nothing in Capital to read.
wrong!
>see pic rel
Capital is the atomic bomb of 19C philosophy. there is a high holy shitload of things to read in it and you should read it. you don't have to give up on your Austrians, they're based too. but even Uncle Nick is now as Austrian as they come - well, Austrianism with Deleuzian Characteristics might be a better description - but even he will say, don't sleep on Marx. you will be fine user.

>Communist Manifesto is just rewritten Social Contract and that's that.
it's the SC + Hegel. and that is some powerful philosophy witchcraft indeed. read that shit senpai

>Where do I start?
You Have To Change Your Life is a good one. then Critique of Cynical Reason and the Spheres trilogy. Sloterdijk is ultra-based, i've read pretty much everything he has written that was ever translated into English. he's dope af

Attached: This is Good.jpg (890x430, 196K)

define fascism...

>The blood elves, like many other races, have a shared experience that binds them together as a people: that of the Scourge invasion, and the almost total destruction of Quel'Thalas. However, the blood elves are different to the other races in several respects, which makes them much closer as a people.

>Firstly, the Scourge invasion happened only five years ago. No matter what the age of your character is, it will still be extremely fresh in their mind.

>Secondly, 90% of the population died. The survivors faced two grueling tasks - burning their beloved homeland to convince the Scourge to leave, and fighting a heroic last stand on Sunstrider Isle.

>What does this mean for your character's general demeanor and personality? Well, unless they have a very, very good reason to be, they are not going to be very happy. Chance are very high that they will have lost a large number of friends and family in the conflict, and the high elven seclusion and long lifetimes mean this will be quite difficult for them to deal with. This means that any overtly happy blood elves are likely to be regarded as either insane or fanatical devotees of Kael'thas. This is a key point to remember: by being a blood elf, you have to have taken part in this conflict, and so you will bear the scars. There isn't much scope for developing a blood elf without including some reference to this event.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 241K)

I loved the low level quest in Silvermoon where we had to deliver lynching ropes to the Guards. Thrall ruined everything. Make Horde Great Again

What part of "We're dosing up because we'd rather be high" did you fucking faggots not get

What part of Capital should I start reading from to avoid all the retarded parts, because I got 100 pages in and it was stupid as fuck.

Sloterdijk is excellent so I know you're not dead inside. Point me to the compelling part of Capital.

who are you even quoting

I own physical, 3 volume, Das Kapital and I have read it. I regret it.
> Hegel.
Hegel was just Luther brought to end.

I'll check the two books, thanks.

my point is that people are going to lose their shit tribalizing, and i don't want to romanticize this tribalization any more than tribalization naturally romanticizes itself. to score points for your own team and fuck up the other guys, to hear the lamentations of the women et al are things that are naturally hard-wired into us.

it's why i am a Conan fan also, because Conan is just a naturally *gloomy* and *melancholy* barbarian. unlike most barbarians - of which he forms, remarkably, the template - he's actually not *happy* about a cycle of unending brutality and war. Howard's vision of the Primordial Hero is not that of Nietzsche's hyper-refined ubermensch, Cesare Borgia or whatever. he doesn't delight in reciprocal cycles of brutality and war, he's fucking bummed out by them. true, he has his moments - he lives, he slays, and he is content, but he's also not even remotely a *political* figure when he does this, he's out wearing a loincloth in the middle of nowhere and being a pirate.

fascism is the ideology of heroic semi-civilized barbarism, and that is why it represents an impossible threshold. i think the whole point of barbarism is ultimately the discovery of gentility, even if this is always a compromised world. Nietzsche tells us, quite convincingly, that there is no absolute difference between Culture and Nature. Spinoza does this also. a live-and-let-live sensibility is to my mind preferred for this reason, however melancholy. and for mediating this i do think there is a role to be played by Catholicism, if not Eastern nondualism. when in doubt, break glass and take drugs.

>What part of Capital should I start reading from to avoid all the retarded parts
i'll save you the trouble. read a very very smart guy writing a fabulous precis that will save you 800+ pages. go here. then i release you from the dread curse. be free and own libs having read what even they are not likely to have read.

>Sloterdijk is excellent so I know you're not dead inside.
t-thanks

>Point me to the compelling part of Capital.
see above.

Attached: Verso_9781781681572_Representing_Capital_PB_cmyk-a39adfa8b66ae9ebcb5d2b58f45755be.jpg (500x755, 466K)

bugman needs mother to point out the digestible bits
the bones and tendons give him a tummy ache

Kapital's mathematical & logical parts are good for making a fire or wiping your ass depending on the quality of the paper. Nothing is lost if you skip them.

Silvermoon guy here, I was playfully mocking you grhgrhdjhafag, just jesting a little. WoW really could use more hate crimes

the point is this. i am not unironically hoping for a Return To Marx. postmodernity is not an ironic or useful philosophy any longer, even Jameson would say that it is the Cultural Logic of Late Capital. obviously i think Uncle Nick Land has far more that is useful to say about the question concerning capital than anybody Unironically Marxist today. but even Land is not who he is without having digested Marx himself. he urges a turn to the right and he's right about a lot of things.

my own sense is just that the present things that ail us go forty kajillion miles beyond anything reducible to left or right politics. Bret Weinstein made a good point: he said, isn't it interesting how left and right libertarians can get along, but left and right authoritarian socialists can't? that's a point i think is worth bearing in mind. and i find odious pseudo or former ancaps like Stefan Molyneux complete fucking douchebags because they seem to like playing games that are incredibly fucking stupid to play - like race and IQ. i don't even like it when *Land* does this and i am the biggest Land homer on this board. it's why i prefer Yuk Hui, or BC Han, or lots of other guys. Land matters because he opens up a whole lot of questions that are in dire need of being asked, and never get asked when we look for the answers in the world of Purest Ideology. we need much more subtle heuristics for talking about this stuff, but the allure of scoring Signal Points on Twitter is way too high, and it leads to the far left and the far right dunking on each other while the world burns and trust dissolves.

we need a better system. whether it comes from Whitehead or Simondon or whoever. not even a new Utopia but arguably a *collapse-compatible* one. i like Peterson for this reason: suffering is built-in and inevitable. the Greater Good of the polis is probably a spook, but because it's such a seductive spook it is incredibly hard to decouple yourself from. we can no longer be hyper-ironic individualists that we can be hyper-committed ideological warriors for the state. wat do? prepare your anus for Interesting Times is my feel. be good, be useful, be trustworthy, be honorable and decent, and make the right kinds of friends. heroic individualist-existentialism is done, but so is infinitely playful neolib decadence, and both forms of radical socialism, and about 148,000 other things uncorked by the Dual Revolution.

i really should try and assemble these thoughts into something other than schizopost.

Attached: ca789a262b48a422b76df94510cd1b5c--vampire-hunter-d-yoshitaka-amano.jpg (474x623, 86K)

you can't get political ecology without nuclear hellfire.
then the question is if walking through it is worth it.

read the guy who drove Land insane, if your answer to that is 'Deleuze" then just quit now

Thank you, I'll see if Jameson can get me invested enough to try Capital again

Tell me that first hundred pages isn't just autistic screeching, please, say it with a straight face

> guy who drove Land insane

Attached: index.jpg (225x225, 5K)

bugman doesn't like allusions to timon of athens
bugman never read shakeapeare

this user gets it

>you can't get political ecology without nuclear hellfire.
but we *did* tho. we *did* get political ecology without this. do you know who this guy is? the secret hero of the twentieth century. we actually managed to defer nuclear Gave Over screens.

if people absolutely want to fucking kill themselves playing chicken there's very little that can be done to stop them. the French Revolution tells an incredible story about this very thing, how things twist and turn and unfold in the most incredible ways. the great philosopher for that is Hegel, he memorializes it all and then some in the PoS. the only question now is what to do with the miraculous borrowed time we have all been granted. it agonized and terrified generations of French post-structuralists and we inherit an even more complicated problem today from them: surviving the end of history they predicted.

i think it is the age of the Do Over button, or the New Game+. the same thing, perhaps, just harder and yet with more bonus unlocks. to repeat and repeat and repeat again, encore. but, you know, maybe more skilfully, and wisely, and carefully.

well hats off to you for indulging me anyways. as i've said, there's absolutely no reason for you to go back to the Austrians either, i'm obviously totally fine with this. Mises is a very sobering man and sobriety, lucidity and sanity are among my favorite characteristics, whether philosophers or economists. Marx shouldn't BTFO everything you have read or thought up until now, that's fine. i hope it doesn't! that's not how thought works anyways...

but a more sophisticated, subtle arrangement of disparate ideas: this is always more what i am hoping for. much as in games, which evolve by the progressive incorporation of subgames, until we get something that increasingly comes to look and feel like reality itself...

Attached: 02-arkhipov-young.ngsversion.1495227880056.adapt.1900.1.jpg (1900x2316, 203K)

not him, eesh. Land ultimately met his match in somebody even more interesting than the Bug

Attached: georges-bataille.jpg (800x450, 113K)

I knew you were referring to him, I was just jesting.
Where do I start with Georges, I haven't read him though I've ran into some quotes here and there.

it's one of the earliest works of proper economic theory, sorry it isn't flashy enough to hold your attention

>muh stars are burning out
Read Thirst for Anihilation, then read Machinic Desire, then tell me who "drove Land insane"

both wrong; the answer is amphetamines

It is sure a theory, but far from proper. It misses the mark (as critique of English authors on economy) and becomes a murderous policy suggestion, misguided in its insistence on being right about iron law of wages/labor theory of value. Only utility of it is in causing economic hemorrhages..

You mean what do they seek to erode?
>The family
>The (unironic) patriarchy
>The constitutional rights
>Biology
>gender roles
>marriage
>Western culture
>free discourse
>The White race
>etc

And I don't use fascist as an insult. 1. Because I don't see it as the evil nazi boogieman 2. The same reason why when right wingers say "Democrats are the real racists" it doesn't work. Because "racist" is a leftist attack. The left's definition of racism is anything white people do to others. You can't appeal to their logic since it's literally made to attack whites. They just laugh at you

I'm gonna hop on to this "Thirst for Annhilation" this sounds really good and epic mayne.

no, you fucking retard. name the 'modern progressives' that 'seek to erode' all those things you listed. jesus.

bugman is like a busted clock

I don't mean to imply that was Heidgeer critique. I point it out as an example how everything will make you a racist if you're white (or a western male even)

Is that really him?

>I knew you were referring to him, I was just jesting.
sorry, i have a hard time gauging tone and other things on the old yak-milking board sometimes.

anyways go here. i haven't read any of his fiction, it's apparently some of the most depraved shit ever written in France (which is saying something). and Land's book on him is...not bad, it's Land so it's worth reading and he's got some awesome lines about Kant and thanatology and so on, but overall not as interesting as FN or his other essays. for me the Accursed Share was enough, there are excerpts from it in here.

monoskop.org/images/0/06/Botting_Fred_Wilson_Scott_eds_The_Bataille_Reader.pdf

the whole story, really, has to be read. even the guys who to me are not as interesting, if only because their influence has been so far-reaching: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault. the more you read of these guys the more the picture assembles itself into one kind of collective story of madness and emancipation, romance and fury. the story of continental philosophy doesn't belong to the left or the right, it belongs to those poor bedraggled fucks who survive it and also those who do not read any of it and are mysteriously harried around the earth by the ghosts of the 19C and 20C. which brings us to where we are today.

>Read Thirst for Anihilation, then read Machinic Desire, then tell me who "drove Land insane"
i don't know what you're getting at. do you want me to say Land's dealer? he apparently was just way too good at his job too. Land drove himself nuts, they all did. they all took a fuckload of drugs and listened to jungle and had a hell of a good (and horrible) time. the later essays in FN, Vauung et al are hardly paeans to the path of excess and the palace of wisdom: he basically confesses to having become a horrible fucking mess.

it's the same thing with HST, who i used to like reading also. he makes the drugs look good, but obviously he ruins his own life with them also. Land drove himself insane and paid the cost. now he is who he is. he has given us some pretty fucking fabulous philosophy to meme about, tho. i'm glad somebody wrote those books, and mildly jealous that it wasn't me. but he did it better than i would have anyways.

Attached: 135448.jpg (263x400, 13K)

>but i think one of the more under-appreciated contributions to pop culture was the inclusion of Blood Elves in WoW
kek

Yeah it is Yarvin. Best argument against Moldbug so far.
Stay mad faggot.

I already decided to jump into Thirst for Annihilation. Scrolled to random part in here:
> archive.org/stream/LandTheThirstForAnnihilationGeorgeBatailleAndVirulentNihilism/Land - The Thirst for Annihilation - George Bataille and Virulent Nihilism_djvu.txt
and loved it.

bugman can't even recognize when he's being complimented.

Accelerationism is the death grips of ideology

I have been owned. I surrender. Where's my French flag..

i do tho! the Americans have a unique gift: *everything must become sexy.* Chris Metzen turned the Orcs into Sexy Misunderstood Noble Savages, even the undead are sexy. everything becomes sexy in Blizzard studios. even the Xenomorph from Alien becomes sexy once Kerrigan gets involved.

there is something quite wonderful in this process, i think. i can't believe that they actually managed to get the Blood Elves in at all, honestly, they're basically White Privilege: The Faction. and yet it works, because Blizzard obviously wasn't so worried itself about looking good on Twitter that they couldn't allow themselves to make a faction like this in the first place. and it would be part of my own approach to these things as well: hey look, there it is, Elves Who Prefer Their Own. how about that. the downside of this is, of course, that everything dissolves into a soupy mess of rather forgettable pulp when it comes to the storylines. Blizzard Americanizes the Tolkien world. but said Americanization also i think prevents the Old World from returning in ways that are ultimately not good for us. if i played WoW today i would probably make a Blood Elf and have a grand old time pretending to be Making Silvermoon Great Again.

tribalism is a feature and not a bug of human civilization. it has to be a thing that doesn't turn us into moral hypochondriacs. our real problem is that we now expect reality to look like it does in the movies and in our games...because the polis, like ourselves, winds up becoming a pair of matched blank slates, to reflect our empty-headeness (and the awesome cosmetic power of capital in late postmodernity itself). and it is because of that very hyper-transactional world in which we live that we will have to get along, and the Brahmins of every political class who think they can regulate this in a top-down fashion are going to be bitterly disappointed. we need a much more rugged and robust way of conducting political life that allow for the triggers.

enjoy senpai

pretty much

Attached: marta-g-villena-kerrigan.jpg (1920x2716, 471K)

How about literally every news network owner, anchors, most university, professors, the ADL, AIPAC, most jews, etc.

Your appeal to "give me specific names" is the actual retarded. Let me head off your rebuttal
>They're not actually progressives by my arbitrary metric
They wield the progressive agenda to achieve their goals.
>but they didn't say on TV or in writing their explicit definitions
Real life people aren't supervision that tell their every machination

Here's some names for your faggot ass defense. Which nobody with honest intentions could defend.

>Robin DiAngelo
>Robert Singer
>Ronald Lauder
>zuccs
>Christopher Wray
>Diane finestine
>jack dorsey
>sheryl Sandberg
>Robert Iger
>Howard kohr
>richard cohen
>Jared Kushner
>Lauren Williams
>Ezra klien
>JJ Abrams
etc.

What race are you so I can know if you're willfully ignorance or malicious in your intentions.

bugman marks the enemy with his chemical tracer
bugman will recognize them by his own scent

Ironically it's the gays and fems that flock to blood elves since they're pretty and the lgbtbbq crowd will never be.

Hope you enjoy Jia's films.

Here's another rec:
> "Long Day’s Journey Into Night"
> imdb.com/title/tt8185182/

Chinese noir film that loans from classic Hollywood. Very moody.

Attached: 1534618090713.jpg (1280x696, 73K)

>im gonna post in poetic phrases to make myself seem more erudite and not actually prove a point

bugman can't bear the sight of his own image, though he can perceive a threat by the timbre of its step

but people *recognize* this stuff today too user, don't you think? Buzzfeed just had to lay off a shit-ton of reporters, and everybody who covered the Smollett hoax uncritically now looks like a massive toolbox.

there's no question the Cathedral is for real, read Moldbug. it unquestionably is, and it gets exposed by dozens of YouTube and other commentators on an almost daily basis now. Donald Trump is unironically the POTUS and he waxed Hilary in the 2016 election. Robin DiAngelo is batty and everybody who tries to interview Dorsey (Rogan, Harris, soon Eric Weinstein) comes away with the same feeling, that he just keeps pivoting. Ezra Klein is a jerk. Zuckerberg is an alien. Kushner is even more complicated, because he now belongs to House Trump. you're not wrong. the good news is that it's way easier to see the machinations of it all than it used to be. when i read YouTube comments on things like the Munk debates i'm honestly comforted by the overwhelming consensus on a guy like MDE being a complete fucking fraud, things like this. it's gonna be okay.

>Ironically it's the gays and fems that flock to blood elves
kek, is that really the case? wow

it's just a wickedly fucked-up time and going to be more so. reading the philosophers has given me only a greater sense of why that is, ultimately. and that attempts to cram the Djinn back in the bottle are fucking doomed. we have to make peace with this rolling wave of fantasies, i think, kind of go with the flow without losing our minds completely. and not becoming seduced by dreams that are ultimately all of vengeance and romance.

maybe it's a good thing that we don't really know who the people playing WoW are. i'm just going to keep this in mind, the next time i encounter the world's greatest Blood Elf impersonator (or Horde devotee, or whatever). in general cultivating a slack-jawed bewilderment and total fucking stupidity about all of it is really what looks good on me. you know nothing, girardfag, and may it ever be so

i haven't looked into them yet but i will keep an eye out, much appreciated user.

Attached: CHgcF0RWoAArXjk.jpg (1024x576, 165K)

And the eagle flies at midnight in the rain

>MDE
million dollar extreme?

bugman can't get his canonical quotations straight, even in jest

nah, my dawg erdogan

no, sorry, that was a typo (and a massively disappointing one!). i meant to say MED, Michael Eric Dyson.

bwahaha

Read ArcheoFuturism and the Fourth Political Theory.

Is Watts useful to unmeming yourself?

Attached: 1528275478155.jpg (1000x581, 331K)

i've honestly never been a big Watts fan personally altho i like his whole project, and i love Eastern mysticism. Eugen Herrigel has some interesting stuff to say about the East also. you can read DT Suzuki or other guys too. if you like the basic ideas of Zen and the Tao et al it probably won't matter to you too much who you get them from. if you want to get really seriously into it later on you can be more nitpicky i suppose. Heidegger always struck me as being a very Zen-compatible guy (as his bromance with DT Suzuki suggests). Schopenhauer seems to have preferred the Upanishads but i always found the Chinese and Japanese mysticism more appealing than the Indian stuff, not sure why.

anyways, best advice is to read him for yourself and decide later.

interesting thing about him, he actually was a disciple of Osho's too for a bit. he says somewhere he wanted to basically write Being and Space like a sequel to B&T. Sloterdijk's way way cool

Attached: naERrC7.jpg (581x417, 61K)

not him but this is literally cringe

i also i appreciated this hand-crafted work of Preview too user and i co-sign it pretty much completely

give me the appropriate quotation then
i'll give you a hint: it's from one of the big h's

which book? I don't know memes

Dont speak in others quotes, speak what your point is directly cringelord

he told you it's from one of the big h's

Attached: 51xQ5uDgH7L._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (324x499, 37K)

bugman doesn't understand language is inherently elliptical

Sad, you couldn't refute anything you were conditioned to disagre with so you resort to trolling on a Mongolian cartoon board.

Just embarrassing
I'm gonna let you get back to your brain dmamge, I don't want be around in case it's contagious.

Attached: collid=books_covers_0&isbn=9781584351603&type=.jpg (550x830, 32K)

thanks

what are you gonna do brother when the Notion runs wild on you

Attached: Hulk_Hogan_Bio.jpg (1200x675, 107K)

I was also fascinated by a chalkboard drawing Martin Heidegger made around 1960, in a seminar in Switzerland, in order to help psychiatrists better understand his ontological theses. As far as I know, this is the only time that Heidegger made use of visual means to illustrate logical facts; he otherwise rejected such antiphilosophical aids. In the drawing, one can see five arrows, each of which is rushing toward a single semicircular horizon—a magnificently abstract symbolization of the term Dasein as the state of being cast in the direction of an always-receding world horizon (unfortunately, it’s not known how the psychiatrists reacted to it). But I still recall how my antenna began to buzz back then, and during the following years a veritable archaeology of spatial thought emerged from this impulse.

“Against Gravity: Bettina Funcke talks with Peter Sloterdijk”

Attached: heideggers-diagram.jpg (403x245, 7K)

Read 10 pages of watts and Jesus christ he spends half the time apologizing for being too wishy-washy when he's not wishy washy enough

posting this here not only because it is a good old-fashioned Fringe Manifesto but also because Bryce was apparently a big deal back in the NRx days, who has now resurrected himself with new and interesting things to say. now he seems to identify with trans stuff? and yet he's still NRx? i don't know what any of this means.

i haven't read this yet, although i will at some point. i actually *did* read his Neoreaction book in 2015 or thereabouts, and thought it was okay-ish, altho i was pretty much learning about all of this stuff for the first time, so there was a kind of honeymoon phase with it. you guys might get a kick out of this. there is no doubt that brooding upon Wat Is Meme can take you far afield indeed.

principiamemetica.wordpress.com/

Twitter
twitter.com/mi55educated
>but even here capital can incorporate the superhuman, becoming its own transcendence, proposing its own mystical theology to subsume the last vestiges of humanity existing outside the capital circuit; but maybe that is the redemption of capital as well, to realize the best of us
hm

no year(s) will ever be as interesting for me philosophically or politically than 2015-2016 but there are still interesting things coming down the pipe i suspect. generally i think it's good to noodle around with ideologies and they are to some degree inescapable, but the interesting stuff tends not to get boxed in by the modal verbs Must and Should before they know what the fuck they are actually saying.

also i am enjoying reading this and finding the spot for Sartre also on the Wild Ride. when things get too crazy in the modern world it's cozy to go back and think about the good old days.

Attached: 71RJDrk18lL.jpg (1400x2171, 181K)

>most interesting year
1832. Goethe dies and Faust pt 2 is published. Although neither work of art was complete, they were finished.

this seems like a very accurate characterization to me also

sorry, i should qualify that: i mean in my own very narrow bracket of being alive in and having some degree of self-awareness. not in a world-historical sense. and i'm being mildly hyberbolic too, it was just the year in which i kinda-sorta realized that politics was about to get massively more complicated than the philosophy i had read to that point was going to be capable of dealing with, and i did a huge deep-dive into the NRx and conservative/far right stuff.
>and began posting on Yea Forums also to cope with the feels

it's still quite fascinating to me also, in many ways, although Land is crustier than ever and i'm saddened that Xenosystems is now a derelict space inhabited by demented werewolves. even social matter hasn't updated itself in a couple of months, i don't know what's going on there. but they did publish one really, really good article recently on Bataille, for anons who are interested in learning more about him:

socialmatter.net/2019/02/08/the-psychological-structure-of-antifascism/

reading the conservative stuff - Arktos, Manticore Press, w/ev else - really was awesome. Land was just the gateway into a lot of that for me, even if i'm not quite as enthusiastic about it all as i used to be: after all, Trump won, but The World Has Not Yet Been Saved. and also Bannon disappeared from the national conversation also, sad. look at this photo! it's like Tom Clancy IRL.

Attached: 10Evola1-facebookJumbo.jpg (1050x549, 70K)

nrx doesnt mean anything anymore other than a preliminary trial model. it didnt die, its now dispersed and has no need for an identitarian name. going trans nowadays is just a career move for more followers.

>Too self-evident to debate
>Can be torn apart by anyone with any knowledge of economics, law or engineering in under 5 minutes. Hint: 1. Opportunity cost. 2.Civil forfeiture throughout history. 3. Redundant codes for error checking.
kek

>socialmatter.net/2019/02/08/the-psychological-structure-of-antifascism/
>Insofar as today’s new wave of politicians, Trump, Bolsonaro and Orban among them, seem to match Bataille’s description, one is entitled to inquire: are these men therefore fascists? The question is deceptively complex. If, from a logical perspective, this conclusion seems to constitute an illicit minor fallacy (fascist leaders are heterogeneous, but the heterogeneous is not thereby fascist, just as all men are not Socrates) its superficial plausibility (Socrates is fascist!?) whispers an essential truth. Fascism, or something labelled fascism, today defines the line of demarcation of the homogeneous discursive spectrum of our time, and thereby designates an intuition of the heterogeneous regal sacred. Hence the countersign of the times: to locate someone interesting (heterogeneous), find out who’s been called as a fascist, and know a fool from their support of antifascism.
literal gobbledygook
the halo of meaningfulness comes from the co-valence of contrasting terms (heterogeneous/homogeneous). liberal sprinkling of these and you can write anything you want in between.
christ.

>nrx doesnt mean anything anymore other than a preliminary trial model. it didnt die, its now dispersed and has no need for an identitarian name.
makes sense. Land too says this, he thinks it more or less fulfilled its mandate. he's probably right about that and i don't miss continually starting the world's worst conversations with family and friends. a rather wistful melancholy replaces this, punctuated by mysterious bouts of Sino-fetishism

>going trans nowadays is just a career move for more followers.
i agree. so is Owning The Left. i do it too, it's like a reflex. there's always some Evil Postmodernist out there i never really encounter, or when i do, i find that usually they're more interesting than i think. life is hard w/o scapegoating

well enlighten us then
>no never mind don't bother

i'm hungry. i'm going to get some food. post something more interesting than spending the rest of my evening playing EU3 or FTL and thinking about Moldbug or Land and we can talk about it. or not

also post feet and define fascism too

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 165K)

it's one big compositional fallacy
same issue was evident in the thread on umberto eco
some miniscule element identifiable as 'progressive' is identified with the entirety of 'progressive politics'
so, because some boisterous kids like to dress up like the opposite sex and sock useful idiots with dumb haircuts in the mouth, and these same kids hashmark feelthebern on their tweets about the marches they've half-thinkingly attended, a whole complex of ideas, policies, legal philosophies, etc etc gets identified and reduced to these outbursts of immaturity
and of course some nitwit with a thesaurus comes along and develops a 'theory' about the whole thing, and that's take up as gospel by the analogous elements of 'the right', and the whole shit-flinging contest continues

can be summarized thus: 'all we wanted, before we even knew it, was for a unitary government under a supreme authority that could vindicate our prejudices and liquidate our enemies, but then you dummies were all like 'hey, no, you can't do that, stop,' and so NOW--hey, listen--NOW, by negative identification, we actually know what we want. you see? you guys actually *created us*. we are the real, regal, regalious, regalicious manifestation of your nightmares. freddie prinze kruger with a crinkle crown, bitches. and we're here for your nylons and pumps and shitty lipstick stolen from walgreens ok?'

thx Uncle Nick
>it's on libgen too

Attached: 872345235234.png (583x396, 78K)

which is the kind of thought you can only have by
1) not reading any history;
2) reading too much theory; and
3) paying only the most superficial attention to media reports on, like, anti-trump rallies.

i don't know what the fuck the tail end of that sentence meant but i absolutely co-sign your right to post it. i do thank you however for Regalicious, which is unironically based

there's no need to dunk on us so hard if you have interesting thoughts about this stuff, i'm just struggling to understand what you mean

this all makes sense to me, sure

Attached: tumblr_n8tglqzvYs1qiwqvto1_400.jpg (384x600, 89K)

what you have in something like that essay is just a deliberate, 'satanic' inversion of the dialectic of enlightnment
call it the diabolism of liberal theocracy
but it's all just a word game, replacing term for term. the logic is still there, but now it's correspondence with reality is just--gone. it's pure fantasy.

>Murphy can't talk about this at Southampton

What are you referring to?

thats how most mainstream critiques are and they will remain pidgeon holed in a kind of suspension of tropes. once you write for a generalized audience you automatically leave out fringe factors that if included will discredit it from the start.

>what you have in something like that essay is just a deliberate, 'satanic' inversion of the dialectic of enlightnment
that's interesting. it does seem warranted tho, in a way. the DoE finds a secret crack in the heroism of Ulysses, which is a colossal downer, but it's not hard to see why if you're Adorno. but there are those who take issue with him in return, and for them there's Bataille.

>call it the diabolism of liberal theocracy
i would call it this also. the world of sacrifice opens caverns dark and deep within the universe of petit-bourgeois narcissism. there is something profoundly illiberal at the heart of liberalism and it cannot stand being brought out into the light

>but it's all just a word game, replacing term for term. the logic is still there, but now it's correspondence with reality is just--gone. it's pure fantasy.
about eighteen post-structuralists would like to have a word with you. this is the world we are now in

i'm not on the side of maximal deconstruction, i am what i am because i was terribly worried about the prospect that nobody was actually steering the ship at all, or if they were, they were steering it more or less on blind impulse. this is what led me to Land and away from the post-structural guys. Bataille is good - very good - at torpedoing something Lacan also wants, which is the conflation of desire with the Good. apocalypse, eschatology and sacrifice are things i can into, i don't really know why. they kind of resonate with me on some deep level and suggest something fundamentally true about the nature of our fantasies and our desires

GB was also a major influence on Baudrillard, those systems of ritual consumption and destruction were interesting to him also, and i think it was Bataille/Mauss et al that finally forced him to break with Marx also. if Girard didn't exist at all i would probably namedrop Bataille much more than i do, but Girard wears a white hat that i like, and find pretty convincing. the logic of sacrifice and murder, these kinds of things...they get pretty dark, but i think they skew agreeably well with Marxist theorymongering also. for me at least they incline me to look at civilization a lot more charitably than i might if i was still in my unironic socialism phase. Confucian ritual also seems to me to deflect a lot of the dark stuff that drives the chains.

well he hasn't been fired, but he's been given some kind of message, and seems to be something of a nonperson at his uni these days, and he's blogged about it too, his disaffection with academia and its sacred cows. which is, imho, a total fucking disgrace, because he's a smart guy and is for me asking all the right questions. but he's rubbed up against the Common Sense of the day, much as Peterson did. i'm not sure if Land was ever actively turfed from his job or if he just knew it was time for a change for him as well. it was the same for Bret Weinstein at Evergreen (and considerably worse).

Attached: aztec-sacrifice-heart-god.jpg (800x422, 67K)

when it comes to civilization i am sometimes inclined to ask, in a kind of old-fashioned way, why there is Something rather than Nothing. decades upon decades of brilliant French post-structural Marxist theory has given us a pretty stunningly good picture of things: stuff like pic rel, for example. the critics at their best make for some pretty excellent reading, and it's not like you want a world in which books like this cannot be written.

source:
monoskop.org/images/e/e0/Pierre_Bourdieu_Distinction_A_Social_Critique_of_the_Judgement_of_Taste_1984.pdf

but it's Land and company who actually move the plot forward these days by way of cybernetics and intelligence and algorithms and the rest. his work actually will be read 25+ years from now, i think, because we are coming to a point where the Marxism can no longer be meaningfully separated from the capitalism - which takes a completely ridiculous form as Progressivism, and a far less ridiculous one as a theory of auto-catalytic intelligence that arguably has no off-switch, is going to replace millions, is entirely generated out of the logic of libertarianism, and is unironically what we cannot help ourselves but to bring into creation because there may well and truly be no other fucking thing to do. the real face of existentialist nihilism isn't Sartre or Kierkegaard reading Pascal and feeling the silence of the infinite spaces: it's the unironic love of money and self as a total and totally militant permanent narcissism. there is no *argument* against capital itself, especially if it really does trend in the long run toward intelligence production. and that it arguably represents the completion of a few centuries of liberal Western thought also is not to be dismissed either.

now it is entirely possible that Land is in this sense - which is to give him a lot of credit - a kind of Freudian being, in a way, in that he is noticing *something* going on under the hood, which was later developed by a whole generation of other analysts and disciples - Jung, Lacan, Klein, whoever else. Freud was the first, and he opened up a lot of doors, and there are people who today who might dismiss him out of hand. that's fine. i think the mass psychologization of capital itself as a cybernetic phenomenon is more than enough to give him his Purple Sweater, even if he's ultimately just an untimely guy destined to be BTFO'd in the future by more clear or sober heads. whatever. for now? he's done the impossible, which is forcing people to ask questions in philosophy they cannot readily answer. that's all anyone has to do to make a name for themselves.

Attached: 51f7PNpGLkL.jpg (319x500, 54K)

>gabidull zo bad id gud

Attached: GABIDULL IZ ZENDIEND.jpg (171x266, 17K)

there never was, unless i am mistaken, anything like a Freudian *ethics* (or am i wrong?) that was supplied by Lacan, who brought his own readings of Hegel, Kojeve, Heidegger and others to bear on Freud's thought, and he came up with something pretty captivating.

how crazy is it to look at /acc stuff in the same way? psychoanalytic theory tells us that Desire, unconscious Desire, is the desire of the other, full stop period. what Landian stuff does is posit a view of the unconscious wholly manifested as capitalism, and bringing itself out into the world (ZeroHP had that remarkable phrase, 'the encephalization of capital'). this is i think what's happening, although i admit that it is kind of darkly romantic in that sense.

but how else do you want to look at this phenomenon? something is assembling here, guys like Musk or those anonymous execs at Facebook and elsewhere aren't suggesting AI isn't going to happen, they're wondering how to manage its appearance so that it doesn't completely faceroll us all. this to me is about as much of a thing to get hyped about in philosophy as anything, a genuine speculative opportunity and epistemological break. AI makes philosophy great again in the most unironic ways, and it's a good thing too, because the twentieth century was equal parts luxury cruise and total fucking panic-inducing nightmare.

civilization is probably worth preserving, and is it really so crazy to posit Land as a kind of Marxist-Freudian, in the weirdest of all possible ways? you can't escape from capital any more than you can escape from your own unconscious drives and desires, so you had might as well just get used to them (and to those of the next guy too). we had more Revolution in the 20C than you could shake a stick at, and the only one that made it out was the capitalist one. wat do?

pretty much

Attached: Screen-Shot-2017-02-01-at-9.27.09-AM-266x350.png (266x350, 156K)

put Capitalism at the top and AI Singularity at the bottom, find flaws.

Attached: unconscious-mind.jpg (275x378, 15K)

monumental 5 terrabyte iceberg chart of NRx shitposts when

soon i hope. i'm going to read this and see whether or not i should kys immediately after comparing Freud and Land or if i should make it a slow and agonizing death spaced out over a few more years. also pic rel is not on libgen but i found a scan.

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39076005317313;view=1up;seq=27

Attached: 220px-The_Unconscious_Before_Freud.gif (220x328, 35K)

Mr. Land your iceberg memeogram is in
>that's Dr. Land to you ffs
sure
>what does it say
well as you know using a highly sophisticated technology the memogram presents an image of your unconscious for further analysis
>yes yes get to the point
and the results are often surprising
>it's Cthulhu isn't it. it looks like Cthulhu
i'm afraid it's something much stranger for you. look
>there must be some mistake
i'm afraid that's impossible
>but this is a map of Africa
it does appear that way
>good god do you have any idea who i am. where are the squid-headed monstrosities. where is neo-China arriving from the future
this is the future, Mr. Land. *your* future.
>i...i feel somewhat...faint. like butter spread over too much bread
it's natural, Mr. Land
>Dr
w/ev. look, is there anyone you can call
>no. nobody understands me or my work

Attached: 03eb5195d2547e7a4dbf9d11c1cd2788.jpg (440x550, 22K)

freud's 'ethics' is adjustment through therapy. civilization is an inheritance, and you have a duty to conform to its strictures, regardless of the pathologies these might induce in the unconscious.
lacan is just an inversion of this. the duty is no longer: repress! but rather: enjoy!

thx for the clarification kind sir

so what do you make of my not-even-half-baked LandFreud comparison

honestly i had stopped reading before you got there, sorry.
gotta take a shower.

define fascism

land is closer to lacan (and deleuze, obviously) than freud.
if capitalism=generalized actuating desire, acceleration just echoes lacan's injunction (or lacan's interpretation of the exteriorized unconscious, anyway) to ride the ride of rides. it is the wolf anus around which we vacuum-seal our red red lips.

the fundamental question about fascism that has to be asked is: why did it not attract Spengler?

Attached: 1_4e7ab4db6c1a016080f4e88a31a9711b.jpg (300x400, 29K)

honking on wolf anus is not what i signed up for
>tfw when an aging boomer mocks you for being a boring and repressed prude
this feel is a sad feel

i should at least have the good taste to include some art tho

there is like a thousand page book on the complete theory of cyberpunk waiting to be written, how we all got wired in this way, uggh. i will never fucking write it and i doubt that i will ever read it either. just an updated Hegel for the age of circuitry

sigh

Attached: tumblr_mluiznQoyD1r35zcoo1_500.jpg (480x480, 88K)

What the fuck do you mean. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? How the fuck can you even posit that question.

It is OBVIOUS that Spengler can hear the siren of Fascism, as all good men do, but as the best of men, he did not falter, he stood tall. Stupid faggot user

just all of it. a complete theory of cerebral wiring, through Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Sartre, Simondon...and on into Baudrillard, Deleuze, Ballard, Dick, and then into Land, Fisher, YH, Ireland, Stiegler and whoever else. the total theory of cyberpunk from the Industrial Revolution to BTC, AI and irony and simulation and the rest. the actual version of the Matrix, the non-fucking meme one, where you don't need kung-fu set pieces, but it can all just be about the story of a charge of electricity that comes alive...

you would need somebody like William Manchester to do it, and William Manchester is not me. but i would fucking shit a brick for a thousand-page tome that comes bound in chrome or something.

Attached: tumblr_p8kv6dRq3K1qhagldo1_540.png (540x383, 216K)

oh ffs i don't mean it that way, that's my whole point. the fact that fascism did not attract Spengler is its most damning indictment

i take your calling me a stupid faggot and i return it to you with love and kisses, so that it's kind of awkward, and we both kind of wish i hadn't done that

and for context that user has been asking this thread to Define Fascism since the beginning, and whenever he does this i have been suggesting books for him to read to enrich his understanding of the subject matter. it has become a meme

'tis all

is accelerationism kind? can you be kind if you're an accelerationist? Nick Land seems like he's a mean person, I hope I'm wrong. Nick Land looks like he could be a kind person if he tries. It makes me sad to think of Nick Land like that, a mean person. No one deserves to be mean, not even Nick Land. I would be his friend.

based kindposter
>is accelerationism kind?
is any ideology kind?
>can you be kind if you're an accelerationist?
sure

i don't what his personality is like, i've never met him. i've seen him interviewed enough, he seems like an okay guy. never threatened anyone with a poker or pushed old ladies down any stairs. he's crabby now in his old age but this happens. married with kids too.

Attached: 345243535.png (712x277, 66K)

>some miniscule element
>miniscule
brainlet tier opinion

>there's a single fibre of my being not yet commercialized

Attached: 3gmy0d3g8iyx.png (491x541, 77K)

because this is too nice not to share

>Let mystery have its place in you; do not be always turning up your whole soil with the plowshare of self-examination, but leave a little fallow corner in your heart ready for any seed the winds may bring, and reserve a nook of shadow for the passing bird; keep a place in your heart for the unexpected guests, an altar for the unknown God. Then if a bird sing among your branches, do not be too eager to tame it. If you are conscious of something new - thought or feeling, wakening in the depths of your being - do not be in a hurry to let in light upon it, to look at it; let the springing germ have the protection of being forgotten, hedge it round with quiet, and do not break in upon its darkness.

gutenberg.org/files/8545/8545-h/8545-h.htm

man cannot live on Deleuze and amphetamines alone after all

Attached: anri-federik25141826.jpg (333x412, 31K)

Is there a good essay about the relationship between perennials and accelerationists?

Something like Guenon/Evola vs Land/Moldbug

not that i can think of offhand, but one thing that i have noticed is that a lot of writers who talk about tech in a kind of /acc way tend to be Catholics, and they don't always write about it in the way that you might expect traditionalists to write on that subject - like Heidegger, for example (who is brilliant). and even recent Heideggerians or Heidegger-influenced types, such as Yuk Hui, do not take a full-bore accelerationist trajectory: again, they're looking for a balance between the technological and moral realms.

if you read guys like Spengler, Evola or Guenon you will simply conclude (not without reason!) that tech represents the Winter Phase. there's truth in that for sure. the career of Baudrillard is pretty interesting in this sense also, given that he breaks with Marxism without having any real idea of what might replace it, and drifts away into his tragic/fatalist Nietzchean stuff.

i've read a lot of the traditionalists and i like their work too, but they're not technophiles. the writers that manage to have a foot in both camps, as i said earlier, tend to be Catholics: Ellul, Chardin, McLuhan, Virilio - and not all of them only to criticize the machines. even Land is a kind of techno-Calvinist in his own way, sometimes.

Attached: _collid=books_covers_0&isbn=9780936756332&type=.jpg (306x475, 47K)

man this teleology thing-meme is a real dark road

other than Land the guy to read to get a sense of this is Heidegger. he's a genuine overlord when it comes to these conversations, not only because he's an all-time A-rank metaphysician/philosopher, but because he's really talking about the meaning of tech and technological thinking in a way that is directly relevant to things today, in more ways than one. cap that off with the fact that he is both as old-school as it gets in his sensibilities (pre-Socratic Greeks were his thing, and Nietzsche) and yet expressly concerned with the meaning of tech as enframing (the Gestell). i highly recommend taking a lengthy side-trip with Heidgger during or along with any explorations of /acc stuff, he's super-important for all kids of stuff, whether you're into the perennials or the accelerationists, imho.

it's dark as hell for sure, which is why you're not likely to see Land and company on CNN anytime soon. but it's also kind of a relief also from World of Irony that characterizes modern life, sometimes...the state of Marxism in 2019. but it does connect back up to a long and venerable philosophical tradition that goes back centuries...

Attached: 391.jpg (1000x622, 105K)

say more please

Bump

>accelerationsim
>ism

No -ism is valid

When the Singularity takes over, how will it judge you? You have treated machines, robots without sentience nice and proper, right?

99% of my posts were a mistake.

what about Buddhism

Accelerationism is a large umbrella. It can be an aesthetic as much as it can be a political theory as much as it can be a study of metaphysics.

it's not valid purely by itself, but it validates the readings of the others. if Land's own career is any indication, accelerationism can be described as a theory of economic process that leads one from the most radical form of Marx to the most radical form of Mises (and arguably back again, albeit in a completely transformed fashion). if we take this quote and add a third clause
>crypto a way of protecting Capital from man
i don't feel like i've done Land an injustice. turns out you actually can get a version of Rand updated with Marx, Deleuze and Kant, fifty years later.

it's one of the stranger theories you are likely to read, but for all its flash and radicalism it is a surprisingly conservative philosophy at the bottom. it works by depriving socialism of its piety and libertarianism of its humanity, and subsequently indicts both. if there is a lacuna in Land's thought it is this: how does he expect a government to actually run? if you aren't aware of capital operating in the background, you're a dope; if you are, you're probably deceiving yourself. there are times when this reminds me of Derrida, except with process-philosophy capitalism instead of text ('il n'y a rien en dehors du capitalisme.') he's worth reading to get that far. once again the End of Philosophy is posited, and the great library has another volume added to it.

the purely economic man is probably a spook, but that we ought to turn ourselves towards the concept of intelligence again doesn't seem all that crazy to me, and it's a pretty comprehensive explanation of the way things are today, imho. he's a great critic of socialism and would be a kind of mysterious ally of Austrian-school theorists. like so many others raised on a straight diet of postmodernity the attraction to the far right is undeniable, but in this there is a mysterious added value in his work: far right politics aren't actually all that good if they don't advance the cause of capital itself. unironic Ethnat fantasies make for stirring romanticism and heroic scapegoat episodes for the economically and psychologically dispossessed, but if they don't do *more* than this the /acc criticism falls on them as much as it does on the postmodern left.

the world in which Marx and Mises are *both* correct is a strange one, but for Land that is the world in which we live.

Attached: Quotation-Ayn-Rand-The-government-was-set-to-protect-man-from-criminals-and-54-47-25.jpg (1200x640, 92K)

the point here is that for Land capitalism isn't about money *alone,* which - for some - is what attracts people to his work. a world of petit-bourgeois decadence, pleasure, and grotesque aristocratic squandering is revolting. this is where the Calvinist aspects of his work enter into it, but in place of anything like the Rapture (or the Revolution), only the unfolding of a Wintermute into the world will suffice, and the unfolding of said Wintermute is not a singular or recognizably historical event, but a slow transformation of the earth and the planetary unconscious into a single process aimed only at its own progressive self-discovery. you can essentially read Hegel backwards (or sideways) and find something not so far removed from Land's own thinking in this.

the question of sacrifice, of the accursed share, of what one *does* with excess or superabundant wealth is what Land keyed in on (or maybe it's just those who read him, it doesn't matter). what is the *point* of accumulation? he offers two words: R and D, and he is really only following the Marxist fragment on machines in this. money has no point or meaning if it is not being folded back on itself in recursive loops. there is undeniably a tacitly Protestant thinking in his own work in this way - if salvation by Grace is impossible, salvation by works will have to do, but all of this is done under the banner of Marxism instead of Christianity. and when it comes to computer intelligences learning to simulate that which produces them, you get the rest of it - the 'alien attack from the future,' unfolding itself into the world as teleoplexy.

this is where the Marxism and the libertarianism encounter each other, and where /acc works as a charge against the infinite playfulness of the postmodernists: Revenge of Marx. the machines don't give a fuck about irony or the death of the author, those are precisely the conditions in which they come to appear, and arguably in no other way. this is not even a remotely crazy reading either: we are now bringing upon ourselves an automatic planet driven by algorithmic governance and consumer processes that aim to do precisely this. we teach the machines about us and they learn to anticipate us, to predict us, and all of the rest. but where is the great scapegoat to be found in this? we do it to ourselves, and we arguably can think of a reason *not* to do it to ourselves. both liberalism and socialism are closely interconnected to the ultimate destiny of the machine and a consciousness wedded to it via the internet and computer technology.

in hindsight this will seem like one of those things more inevitable than radical, but my suspicion is that that is usually how it goes with the more substantial contributions to continental thought. if you hate liberalism for its decadence and excesses, if you like socialism for its futurism...or if you like liberalism for its economics, and hate socialism for its destructive pietism: that's /acc.

Attached: DzvaleaU8AEl6rm.jpg (880x710, 150K)

new Hickman too:

>For Land the whole Kantian tradition has bound itself within a metaphysical black box from which it cannot by conceptuality ever hope to extract or free itself. Only by opening itself to the pragmatic Outside of primary process and the productive forces that have shaped AI, modernity and Capitalism can it begin to break free of its chains to the humanistic worldview. Instead we must end the chatter of theory and critique which always lead to regressions and circularities – ‘aren’t you using ideas to critique ideas’ – that “short-circuit metaphysical attempts to access base-material” (Overy, p. 302). As Overy suggests one way forward is to align Land’s attempt at measuring desiring-production with an anti-metaphysical and mathematically precise determination of the rules that condition these underlying automatic productions of a materialist post-psychoanalytical method.

>Land left the loop of academic philosophy long ago for an anti-philosophical and pragmatic acceptance of the Outsider view and observer of our cultural malaise. His outsider stance and political proclivities have aligned him as the enemy of the Left and it’s minions. Speaking of academic philosophy in our time Land reminds us that they are “characterized by their moral fervour, parochialism, earnestness, phenomenological disposition, and sympathy for folk superstition,” while those of the outer reaches, the anti-philosophers and followers of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bataille, and their ilk are known by their “fatalism, atheism, strangely reptilian exuberance, and extreme sensitivity for what is icy, savage, and alien to mankind.”

source:
socialecologies.wordpress.com/

you can find the Overy thesis on r/theoryfiction also, if anyone is interested.

Attached: 1549481971847.jpg (1280x1859, 491K)

HIckman's politics are pure cuckoldry, how can he write this stuff and be upset about Trump

what did he say about Trump?

Describing Land or similar AI accelerationist as atheist is simply wrong. AI, Skynet, Singularity is the eschaton & God for them.

No, it really isn't. I can understand why you'd think that, but that's a stopgap and too simplistic line of thought

I must've mistaken the blog sorry my bad

Land thinks this is a part of templexity, that all sorts of weird ideas start looping in on themselves from the past, and accelerationism appropriating the monotheistic lexicon is another example of this

To add to this a bit, if Land conceptualizes a God (he would object to how I use God here), he does that in a sort of Spinoza-esque fashion. God as the law of nature. God as the law of becomings. You probably are far more knowledgeable about Land then me, so I concede every and all points made against me

God nonetheless.

A very powerful demon would be a more accurate assessment. Even then you would be off by a bit. There are transcendental principles that affect our world. The parts of it that are affecting our world can be named. This process of naming is demonology. If you call them Gods, you might make some attribution errors.

not the user you were replying to, but i think that's more or less accurate. Deleuze deferred to Spinoza ultimately and Land defers to Deleuze also. but Deleuze never wrote anything explicitly on the computer sciences or AI, or took the fragment on machines as far in the direction of automation as Land would.

anyone who wants to seriously engage with Land's work needs to read Amy Ireland's essay on him, it's the best thing ever written about Land stuff not written by Land himself. it's dense but completely brilliant.

>As the producer disappears into the machine, the reader is confronted with increasingly vertiginous challenges to traditional methods of textual consumption. Most alarmingly, the diminishment of human authorship plunges the human reader into a problematics of scale. The sheer length and disconcerting complexity of combinatorial pieces, like the tedious repetition of copied and transcribed texts (both modes of enacting non-narrative violence as a problematization of chronology/ROM) renders them either impossible or entirely unpleasurable to consume in any ordinary manner. It has been argued, particularly in the case of conceptual writing, that the textual demand for both linear and close reading be scrapped in favour of methods more akin to scanning, browsing, and ‘spritzing’. The frenetic, over-stimulated restlessness of such habits escalates quickly as readers become users in an increasingly exploitative relationship with their tools of textual consumption.

urbanomic.com/document/poememenon/

Attached: GotG_ProtSet-2.jpg (900x1200, 1.09M)

a better slice of greentext:

>In its simplest form, then, accelerationism is a cybernetic theory of modernity released from the limited sphere of the restricted economy (‘isn’t there a need to study the system of human production and consumption within a much larger framework?’ asks Bataille) and set loose to range the wilds of cosmic energetics at will, mobilizing cyberpositive variation as an anorganic evolutionary and time-travelling force. A ‘rigorous techonomic naturalism’ in which nature is posited as neither cyclical-organic nor linear-industrial, but as the retrochronic, autocatalytic, and escalatory construction of the truly exceptional9 Human social reproduction culminates in the point where it produces the one thing that, in reproducing itself, brings about the destruction of the substrate that nurtured it. Technics and nature connect up on either side of a lacuna that corresponds to human social and political conditioning so that the entire trajectory of humanity reaches its apotheosis in a single moment of pure production (or production-for-itself). The individuation of self-augmenting machinic intelligence as the culminating act of modernity is understood with all the perversity of the cosmic scale as a compressed flare of emancipation coinciding with the termination of the possibility of emancipation for the human. ‘Life’, as Land puts it ‘is being phased out into something new’—‘horror erupting eternally from the ravenous Maw of Aeonic Rupture’, while at the fuzzed-out edge of apprehension, a shadow is glimpsed ‘slouching out of the tomb like a Burroughs’ hard-on, shit streaked with solar-flares and nanotech. Degree zero text-memory locks-in. Time begins again forever’.

a catallactic theory of modernity really isn't all that crazy, and once you became even dimly aware of how much we are as human beings wired for mindless pleasure and bliss you can't unsee. Land is a kind of gifted philosophical computer hacker in this sense. it's more or less up to us what we want to do with having been shown the debug code for consumerism.

Attached: tumblr_p7gdtjVLqB1s82c3do1_400.gif (362x275, 1.99M)

the other question to be asked is what comes to fill the void of Transcendental Miserabilism, because it goes both ways: consumerist wireheading (repression-as-enjoyment), or pseudo-Protestant socialist ressentiment (enjoyment-as-repression).

Attached: tumblr_m9rla0WI5v1qex3x3o1_640.png (598x475, 42K)

Has any scientist ever told why non-existence is presumed default. Evidently existence is default position or we wouldn't be here or we wouldn't even be stable.

not sure what you're getting at. what constitutes non-existence for you? do you mean human existence? atomic existence? industrial existence? capitalist existence?

>Evidently existence is default position or we wouldn't be here or we wouldn't even be stable
ah stability. i remember that. those were good times

Foucault has a similar ending being a revealed neo-liberal now.

Middle aged men are just bored hedonists looking to convince thier partner of a threesome. Kinda boring desu

>metaphysics
>scientists
???

>That linked page
What the fuck am I reading there

Where {&when} do you think you are?

Amy Ireland and she's a boss, but the language is fairly dense. start with the Accelerate reader () which includes Teleoplexy. if you want to jump straight to Teleoplexy you can do so at the link below.
track5.mixtape.moe/zphjim.pdf

if you want to get heavy into Land read FN first to Meltdown, then stop. Greenspan and Overy for intro and more academic commentary, the Yea Forums reader. there's a shitload of stuff you can work through. plus many other links in the Cosmotech threads if you want more.

Attached: N1V9PES.jpg (5100x3000, 503K)

>tfw on that Land-Hoopoe shit

They were within—they were before the Throne,
Before the Majesty that sat thereon,
But wrapt in so insufferable a Blaze
Of Glory as beat down their baffled Gaze.
Which, downward dropping, fell upon a Scroll
That, Lightning-like, flash'd back on each the whole
Past half-forgotten Story of his Soul:
Like that which Yusuf in his Glory gave
His Brethren as some Writing he would have
Interpreted; and at a Glance, behold
Their own Indenture for their Brother sold!
And so with these poor Thirty: who, abasht
In Memory all laid bare and Conscience lasht,
By full Confession and Self-loathing flung
The Rags of carnal Self that round them clung;
And, their old selves self-knowledged and self-loathed,
And in the Soul's Integrity re-clothed,
Once more they ventured from the Dust to raise
Their Eyes—up to the Throne—into the Blaze,
And in the Centre of the Glory there
Beheld the Figure of—Themselves—as 'twere
Transfigured—looking to Themselves, beheld
The Figure on the Throne en-miracled,
Until their Eyes themselves and That between
Did hesitate which Sëer was, which Seen;
They That, That They: Another, yet the Same:
Dividual, yet One: from whom there came
A Voice of awful Answer, scarce discern'd
From which to Aspiration whose return'd
They scarcely knew; as when some Man apart
Answers aloud the Question in his Heart—
'The Sun of my Perfection is a Glass
Wherein from Seeing into Being pass
All who, reflecting as reflected see
Themselves in Me, and Me in Them: not Me,
But all of Me that a contracted Eye
Is comprehensive of Infinity:
Nor yet Themselves: no Selves, but of The All
Fractions, from which they split and whither fall.
As Water lifted from the Deep, again
Falls back in individual Drops of Rain
Then melts into the Universal Main.
All you have been, and seen, and done, and thought,
Not You but I, have seen and been and wrought:
I was the Sin that from Myself rebell'd:
I the Remorse that tow'rd Myself compell'd:
I was the Tajidar who led the Track:
I was the little Briar that pull'd you back:
Sin and Contrition—Retribution owed,
And cancell'd—Pilgrim, Pilgrimage, and Road,
Was but Myself toward Myself: and Your
Arrival but Myself at my own Door:
Who in your Fraction of Myself behold
Myself within the Mirror Myself hold
To see Myself in, and each part of Me
That sees himself, though drown'd, shall ever see.
Come you lost Atoms to your Centre draw,
And be the Eternal Mirror that you saw:
Rays that have wander'd into Darkness wide
Return, and back into your Sun subside.'—

This was the Parliament of Birds: and this
The Story of the Host who went amiss,
And of the Few that better Upshot found;
Which being now recounted, Lo, the Ground
Of Speech fails underfoot: But this to tell—
Their Road is thine—Follow—and Fare thee well.

>tfw Conference of the Nerds

Attached: 26409-1.jpg (800x640, 259K)

Bump

>watching youtube videos about jordan memerson
who let these apes on Yea Forums?

Attached: outside2.png (615x559, 65K)

clean your room

same nig desperatly trying to get attention

sort your penis

Attached: DTxuru6WsAYgR54.jpg (860x1200, 105K)

Tell me about your personal views. Are you religious for example? Trump voter?

>Tell me about your personal views.
punch in girardfag on warosu, they're mostly cringe rantings and ravings about acceleration tho. not really all that interesting tbqh. but i do like talking about philosophy with anons here, i've had some really wonderful conversations on this board. the Cosmotech threads were really fun.

>Are you religious for example?
this one is hard to answer. i don't go to church or anything like this. i have a great fondness for the work of Girard, but most reading that interests me invariably blurs the lines between religion, philosophy and psychology. those in turn connect to anthropology and mythology historically, and going ahead to more recent stuff involving technology. i'm kind of all over the place. i find the Tao pretty nifty too, and i am attracted to Land threads on Yea Forums like a moth to a flame. i find religion to be a more or less indispensable check on political extremism.

>Trump voter?
i'm a leaf, so no. i'd have voted for one of the independents. but the 2016 election was the first one that i ever really paid much attention to, if only because i was getting seriously into a lot of conservative thought at that time, doors that were opened up for me by readings of Heidegger, Land, Baudrillard &c. learning about the big reactionary wave of NRx and Austrian school economists was quite fascinating, i hadn't really done much reading of the other side of the fence until a few years ago. now i'm kind of drifting back towards the same boring centrism i departed from, i think. i shill for Land because i think he's one of the most important philosophers alive right now, but not because i genuinely want the world to be taken over by Skynet or anything like that. more because he has identified some the critically malfunctioning parts within our neoliberal world order. hard and fast political ideology of any stripe strikes me as being more pathological than anything, but it's very hard to shake ideology or ever talk about philosophy in a kind of completely detached way also. i think we're going through some kind of epochal shift right and i'm really not sure what the best to comport oneself to it is. i admire Peterson for a lot of the things that he does, even if his readings of the continental guys i like is often terribly uncharitable. Land is no saint either and i am hoping someday to find somebody more interesting than him to talk about.

i have no academic philosophical pedigree at all, i'm self-taught in all of this stuff. just always been a big reader. and i probably have a few screws loose.

Attached: 1512856542_opus-magnum-free-download-1.jpg (620x355, 41K)

Interesting. Why aren't you religious, like Christian, for example?

Attached: 1490193697003.jpg (497x750, 174K)

i certainly have the permanently guilty conscience for it. i don't really know why, to be honest. once upon a time i set out to write a fantasy novel that i was sure was not going to have one thing in it, that being religion, which i rather naively assumed was the source of the world's ills. you can see how this has turned out for me.

i have no issue with Christians, they frequently make some of the best writers on subject that interest me. perhaps it is because i believed that the answers i was hoping to get from a close study of postmodernity were in fact only going to be given by perennialism; that a kind of fundamental underlying similarity exists between all mystical traditions is why i don't really associate myself too strongly with any one faith or another. the Sufis, Taoists, Zen, Buddhist and Christian mystics would i imagine all get along fairly well on the issues that really matter. i was associated with a Stoic forum for a while as well, and considered being a mentor with them. unfortunately, Nietzsche had other plans for me at that time! and then Heidegger...

things only seem to get infinitely complicated in the world of practical philosophy, really: capitalism and its discontents. i'm still working out where i am on that.

Attached: 51NRX+DrMdL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (332x499, 38K)

Bump