META-NOMAD

Election 2017, Great Britain: The Grey Whig-ged Vampire

We’re becoming redundant.

This will be the first few years of the beginning of Britain’s farewell as a global ‘power’, neither of the clear choices in this election, namely: Theresa May (Conservatives) & Jeremy Corbyn (Labour), are actually innovative in the political sense, neither of them seem to be interested in technological-progression or ‘demanding’ more, they both adhere to the general public’s love of a miserable form of British stasis; Britain is completely stuck between 1960 and 2000, not much that we have now, wasn’t possible then, yet, going by the exponential possibilites of advancement within various fields, we should, in theory and often in practice (Shanghai/Dubai) be making progress. I’m neither pushing the left of right, or unconditional wing of any certain ideology here, only that the possibilties are there, yet no one dare mention them in fear of leaving the Britain’s comfortable temporal-Island.

Britain has in many ways become a Grey Vampire:

“Another tactic – particularly effective at wasting time and energy this one – is the claim [by grey vampires] that all they want is a few clarifications, as if they are just on the brink of being persuaded, when in fact the real aim is to lure you into the swamp of sceptical inertia and mild depression in which they languish.

“But what differentiates the Greys from other kinds of vampires is the disavowed nature of the feeding. Grey Vampires don’t feed on energy directly, they feed on obstructing projects. The problem is that, often, they don’t know that they are doing this.”

“…once their shield of sociability and charm falls away, they become revealed as horribly, tragically cursed, existentially blighted. But the Grey Vampire is also a subject position that (any)one can be lured into if you enter certain structures.”

It may be a bit of a stretch to apply the concept of a Grey Vampire to an entire country, political system or government, yet that’s how one feels, as if Britain is sucking its general public into a cataclysmic-bore, a hole that has no bottom nor any falling, it’s there and that’s about all there is to it. The ability for Britain’s political system to act as a banal-loop of comfort; you have to ‘have bad for the good’ they say, the problem with this is that those who go from the ‘bad’ to the ‘good’ could merely exist in a nightmarish game of back and forth between zero-change.

Praxis: A back and forth between Labour and Conservative – both of which adhering to their follower’s expected blueprint-esque morality systems -, with both sides feeling a glow of relief as the other takes the reins for another 3-4 terms…and then back, the swing of a monotone pendulum ,a pure political-linearity in which those who publically exist on the line as ‘subjects’ of the state are born into knowing no other alternative, taught from birth that the past was mostly horrible, or only acted as a means of progression for the current/the modern, and those systems of the past were regressive, backwards – cannot be changed (now)? – and that where we’re at now is the best possibility, once again, we come back to the fact that Whig history is the given position from birth for most western countries and their citizens.

Launching off from inherented whig history however we find a current problem: within Britain and Britain’s education system: yes, the past is given as a form of ‘bad’, yet the future is rarely discussed publicly, it’s that which is out-of-reach and exists only within a World of Tomorrow dream, to demand automation as the East is beginning to would be a form of political suicide and would begin to swing the dreary-pendulum back the other way, thus, for either party to move towards either direction on their already suffocating linearity is the possibility and inevitabilty of changing hands once again – with those on the fringes (Liberal Democrats) acting only as a quasi-potential for actual change.

One should address the other ‘alternatives’ here. One could of course spoil their ballot, this is an option, it’s an option which for the unforseeable future will do very little due to the education systems control over the populous, unless there is drastic action taken in some sense towards the government, the amount of spoiled ballots will not rise above 5%. You could also ‘Not vote’ of course, there’s that.

You could also leave the country, go somewhere that doesn’t just take a linear form of their own history into account, but actually takes the actual future into account, one filled with possibilites and systematic progression, one with working sense-organs.

 

Nick Land, CCRU, Accelerationism and Neoreaction – An Overview & Guide

INTRODUCTION:

 

Firstly, why the hell am I writing ‘this’? There have been countless attempts in recent months at articles towards something like a ‘Who is Nick Land?’, ‘What is Accelerationism?’ or ‘What is Neoreaction?’ or short essays attempting at a general encapsulation of a man whose work, as far as I can see, exists purposely in a Pynchonian cyber-scattering. When one comes across a fresh piece of Landian theory, they become a momentary data-archaeologist, raking through the datacombs in the hope of finding a measly piece to this chaotic assemblage. So, why? Because scatterings aggravate me, especially when it comes to monetized repetition, articles repeating vague biographical ‘facts’ and tit-bits without any real relation to the theory and critiques Land has made; simple frustratingly transparent semi-hagiographic pieces largely in relation to the mythos of Land’s time at Warwick. So I felt, in a way, that there should be at least some attempt at a ‘piece’ which not only discussed Land himself – only when needs be – but also extrapolated as to why there is such a following. A place in which 3 key ‘theory’ components which are in way ‘linked’ can be found together. I must stress, this is not my attempt to lump any 1 of these things with another, no, only that when one comes across Land’s work they hear of Accelerationism, and following that Neoreaction, and not always in that order, think of this as a kind of beginner’s guide, or overview of 3 very eclectic and scattered ideas.

 

I already understand that this piece, article, essay, word-mash, is going to come across as a complete gushing for my admiration of Land’s work, which in itself will utilize many of the stylistic choices and theoretical devices employed by Land himself, hopefully by the end of this piece, the reader, in part, will understand why the work of Land (& the CCRU) is so infectious – whether maliciously viral or not – and why it finds its way seeping into the smallest of academic and creative pursuits and quandaries. Take this piece as assemblage of Land, CCRU and all that gravitates towards, a place on the internet where you can (hopefully) find all you need to guide you down each dirty ‘n clean alleyway à la Land.

And with regards to the Dark Enlightenment/Neoreaction section, if by now it’s clear, simply talking or writing about something does not mean an affiliation or support for that ‘thing’, however toxic people may find it.

Discussion Support.

Enjoy, or don’t.

 

BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY:

 

“Academics’ lives are seldom interesting…What do you know about me, given that I believe in secrecy? … If I stick where I am, if I don’t travel around, like anyone else I make my inner journeys that I can only measure by my emotions, and express very obliquely and circuitously in what I write. … Arguments from one’s own privileged experience are bad and reactionary arguments.” – Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations, pp. 11–12

 

Henrik Palmgren: “Introduce yourself to the audience a bit…”

 

Land: “Umm…well I mean…it’s hazy to me, so I think it will be hazy to other people.

 

For those familiar with Land the first quote by Deleuze is almost absurdly relevant. From my somewhat excessive research and reading into Land, one thing – amongst many – has become clear with relation to ‘biographies’, he’s not particularly interested in them, especially his own, what’s of importance is the work that came from that ‘era’ however trivia filled and ‘cool’ it was. That said this – sadly – is what interests some people – in part – about Nick Land.

 

And so: (all links are NON-referral)

 

Nick Land is an English philosopher and writer – Wikipedia.

 

1987-1998: Land lectures in Continental philosophy at Warwick university.

 

1992: The Thirst for Annihilation: Georges Bataille and Virulent Nihilism is published.

 

1995: Land becomes co-founder (along with Sadie Plant) of the Cybernetic Culture Research Institute (CCRU), a student-run collective unofficially ‘part’ of Warwick’s philosophy department.

 

1997: Plant leaves Warwick, as such Land becomes ‘leader’ of the CCRU.

 

1990’s: Land produces/publishes various short articles for & alongside the CCRU.

 

Unknown Year: Land collaborates on a text called Necrophysics with physicist Rhett Allain.

 

Unknown Year: Land moves to Shanghai

 

Unknown Year: Land becomes editor of Urbanatomy and teaches at the New Centre for Research & Practice.

 

Unknown Year: Land begins writing psychological horror.

 

2011: Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007 is published.

 

2014: Templexity: Disordered Loops through Shanghai Time is published.

 

2014: Phyl-Undhu is published.

 

2015: Chasm is published.

 

Land’s two current blogs are: Urban Future 2.1 and Outside In, alongside his twitter: @Outsideness

 

Also a link to his old blog posts: Old Nick Stuff, Hyperstition and CCRU

 

And I’ll leave this here as a sort of footnote, for those who can be bothered with the ‘cool’ biog-elements.

 

EARLY-LANDIAN PHILOSOPHY:

 

I shall try give a brief overview of elements of Landian philosophy, however, to succinctly explain ‘it’ in its entirety within say, 10,000 words would be difficult. Also, when talking about Land’s older word (pre-Shanghai) it’s important to keep this quote from the man himself in mind:

 

It’s another life; I have nothing to say about it – I don’t even remember writing half of those things … – An Experiment in Inhumanism, Robin Mackay

 

The Thirst for Annihilation: Georges Bataille and Virulent Nihilism is Land’s only full length academic book, and more than likely be will be his last, due to his distain with Western academia, whether or not there will be more theory-fiction, who knows?

 

The book itself is unlike any other ‘commentary on another’s work’ I’ve read, it’s far more lucid, much like a set of meditations on Kant, Bataille, Nietzsche, Marx and Schopenhauer, as opposed to a rigorous in-depth ‘critical’ analysis of Bataille’s work.

 

Being Sufficiently does a great job overviewing the work.

 

“Ever since it became theoretically evident that our precious personal identities were just brand-tags for trading crumbs of labour-power on the libidino-economic junk circuit, the vestiges of authorial theatricality wear thinner” – Land, Thirst, Preface XIII

 

“There is one simple criterion of taste in philosophy: that one avoid the vulgarity of anthropomorphism. It is by failing here that one comes to side with cages. The specifics follow straightforwardly:

 

“1. Thoroughgoing dehumanization of nature, involving the uttermost impersonalism in the explanation of natural forces, and vigorously atheological cosmology. No residue of prayer. An instinctive fastidiousness in respect to all the traces of human personality, and the treatment of such as the excrement of matter; as its most ignoble part, its gutter…

2. Ruthless fatalism. No space for decisions, responsibilities, actions, intentions. Any appeal to notions of human freedom discredits a philosopher beyond amelioration.

3. Hence absence of all moralizing, even the crispest, most Aristotelian. The penchant for correction, let alone vengefulness, pins one in the shallows.

4. Contempt for common evaluations; one should even take care to avoid straying accidentally into the right. Even to be an enemy is too comforting; one must be an alien, a beast. Nothing is more absurd than a philosopher seeking to be liked.” – Land, Thirst, Preface XX

 

Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007 begins with Land’s more formal essays on Kant, Heidegger and Nietzsche, the kind of essay you would find from an extremely gifted and philosophically energetic and original thinker, this aside, these essays are, in terms of Landianism, components of an academic system and as such are a falling back into the security of the institution. From here there is a set of 4 essays (Spirit and Teeth through to Making it with Death), each of which are still within academic jurisdiction, yet one feels they are beginning to push away from the ‘accepted’.

 

From here on out in Fanged Noumena we are reading the Land we’ve heard about, the central section of the text I would personally say is the most theoretically important in terms of Landianism, spanning from Circuitries through to the famous Meltdown, we feel Land is working with the philosophical intensity of a madman, a worry begins to build during reading, as one realises what it must have been like to have this kind of scheme flowing 24/7, a hypnotic whirlwind of anti-humanism, cybernetic-theory, Gibson-esque language, post-structuralism, nihilism, and a general sense that at any second something has to give. Which, in a way, during the last sections of the text it does.

 

“Level 1, or world-space, is an anthropomorphically scaled, predominantly vision-configured, massively multi-slotted reality system that is obsolescing very rapidly. Garbage time is running out.

Can what is playing you make it to Level 2?” – Fanged Noumena (Blurb)

 

From A zIIgothIc–==X=coDA==–(CookIng–lobsteRs– wIth–jAke–AnD–DInos) through to Tic-talk something has given way in the author, they’ve entered into and are writing from a plane of existence which is very difficult for the reader to attend, there’s a level of separation which in itself addresses in some ways why the ‘Human Security System’ the Land of the 90’s sought to leave/destroy is actually beneficial at times.

 

“Whenever its name has been anything but a jest, philosophy has been haunted by a subterranean question: What if knowledge were a means to deepen unknowing?”


 

CCRU

 

As I’ve stated in the BIO section, CCRU stands for Cybernetic Culture Research Institute, a collective, that:

 

does not, has not, and will never exist‘.”

 

A collective whose interests spanned a broad range: Continental philosophy, post-structuralism, cybernetics, science-fiction, rave culture, jungle music, occultism, cyber-philosophy & culture, AI, accelerationism, time-theory, theory-fiction, Lemurian-studies, cryptography, Marxism, capitalism, Afro-futurism, Indo-futurism, Sino-futurism, & more.

 

Here’s a the CCRU GlossaryYou’ll need it.

 

I have to admit at this juncture – and this will most likely be the case for much of this piece – that the CCRU is difficult to ‘sum-up’, and near impossible to begin describing without using source material from the Unit itself:

 

Ccru retrochronically triggers itself from October 1995, using a UK University as a temporary habitat. Its emergence is sequenced and accelerated by a series of singularities” – CCRU, Communique One,

 

“Many members of the Ccru had fled cultural studies, disgusted by its authoritarian prejudices, its love of ideology, and pompous desire to ‘represent the other’ or speak on behalf of the oppressed. To us, it never seemed that the real articulacy of the left academic elites was in any way superior to the modes of popular cultural expression which were either ignored or treated as raw material to be probed for a ‘true’ (ie ideological) meaning by white middle-class intellectuals.

 

These events sought to reinforce and energize the interrelations between elements of theoretical research and popular culture.

 

Ccru is an ongoing experiment in collectivity, collective production, anonymity, and masks, dedicated to practically dismantling standard models of social existence, by pursuing ethics in the spinozistic sense (experimental production of collective bodies).“- CCRU, Communique Two,

 

“Still nominally affiliated to the famously post-structuralist Philosophy Department of Warwick University, England, the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit is a rogue unit. It’s the academic equivalent of Kurtz: the general in Apocalypse Now who used unorthodox methods to achieve superior results compared with the tradition-bound US military. Blurring the borders between traditional scholarship, cyberpunk sci-fi and music journalism, the CRRU are striving to achieve a kind of nomadic thought that to use the Deleuze & Guattari term—“deterritorializes” itself every which way: theory melded with fiction, philosophy cross-contaminated by natural sciences (neurology, bacteriology, thermodynamics, metallurgy, chaos and complexity theory, connectionism), academic writing that aspires to the future-shock intensity of jungle and other forms of post-rave music.” – Renegade Academia, Simon Reynolds. (As a matter of fact the Renegade Academia article is probably the most succinct when it comes to describing CCRU.)

 

“Their unattributable, arcane writings, telling of strange inhuman entities, hyperstitional personages and syncretic pantheons, are uniquely disturbing and compelling: it is as if the group had collectively accessed hitherto undiscovered realms of bizarre archetypes. They successfully smeared the line between the real and what they called the ‘hyperstitional’: fictions that make themselves real through collective practice.” –  An Experiment in Inhumanism, Robin Mackay

 

So, what the fuck is or…was the CCRU? I guess in ‘layman’s’ terms it was a collective that wanted to push the boundaries of philosophy and theory, a collective who felt suffocated and constrained by the over-bearing heavily – being an understatement – left-wing leaning academic system. A group who sought to utilize methods, devices, texts and ‘thinkers, whom/which otherwise would be deemed weird, non-professional, unquantifiable, ‘esoteric’ and not fit for proper academic theorizing/essay production.  

 

(Links to most relevant page – directly to their work)

 

The list below is but a few of the members of CCRU, the selection is of those who are more prolific, or perhaps simply standing a little more in the spotlight, that said, a trip down any one of these hyperlink-holes will shed some (dark) light on the ‘point’ of CCRU.

 

This mythological somewhat cult-like group is inclusive of and affiliated with:

 

Iain Hamilton Grant

 

Ray Brassier

 

Reza Negarestani

 

Mark Fisher

 

Kodwo Eshun

 

Robin Mackay

 

Luciana Parisi

 

Matthew Fuller

 

Hyperdub

 

Kode9

 

Anna Greenspan

 

Hari Kunzru

 

Jake and Dinos Chapman

 

0[rphan]d[rift>]

 

“He regarded the degeneration of his ‘breakthrough’ into a ‘breakdown’ as ultimate and humiliating proof of the incapacity of the human to escape the ‘headcase,’ the prison of the personal self. Wretchedly, for Land, it was no longer possible to tell whether his speculative epiphanies had been (as he had believed at the height of his delirium) glimmers of access to the transcendental – or just the pathetic derangements of a psyche pushed to the derisory limits of its tolerance. The experiment was over.

When I contacted Land about the republication of his works, he did not protest, but had nothing to add: It’s another life; I have nothing to say about it – I don’t even remember writing half of those things … I don’t want to get into retrospectively condemning my ancient work – I think it’s best to gently back off. It belongs in the clawed embrace of the undead amphetamine god.”

An Experiment in Inhumanism, Robin Mackay


One commented (on Twitter) has made it clear that leaving out Gnon was a grave error, I feel this is the most applicable place to put ‘Gnon’, it especially needs to be put prior to NRx.

Land’s own short write up of what Gnon is can be found here: http://www.xenosystems.net/the-cult-of-gnon/

Extracts from the piece:

If The Arbiter of the Universe merits abbreviation (“TAofU”), Nature or Nature’s God has a much greater case. A propeller escapes awkwardness, and singularity compacts its invocation. NoNG, Nong, No — surely, no. These terms tilt into NoNGod and precipitate a decision. The ‘God of Nature or (perhaps simply) Nature’ is Gnon, whose Name is the abyss of unknowing (epoche), necessarily tolerated in the acceptance of Reality.”

“Gnon is no less than reality, whatever else is believed. Whatever is suspended now, without delay, is Gnon. Whatever cannot be decided yet, even as reality happens, is Gnon. If there is a God, Gnon nicknames him. If not, Gnon designates whatever the ‘not’ is. Gnon is the Vast Abrupt, and the crossing. Gnon is the Great Propeller.”


 

ACCELERATIONISM

 

Both the left and right accelerationist thought can be tracked back to the work of Marx, Nietzsche, Land and the CCRU. That’s as much of history of accelerationism really needs, it wouldn’t be in-keeping to drudge up the past every 5 minutes now, would it? (But that’s the way things are…now.)

So, what is accelerationism, that elusive political and social ‘theory’ which has been picked up by the likes of The Guardian and the New Statesmen, yet still comes across as a little vague.

To put accelerationism into a sentence:

 

“‘accelerationism’ is the idea that the only way out is through”. – Steven Shapiro.

Capitalism isn’t exactly working and there’s no going back, so what can we do?

“Accelerate the process” – Deleuze & Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, p260.

“if capitalism generates its own forces of dissolution then the necessity is to radicalise capitalism itself: the worse the better. We can call these positions accelerationist.” – accelerationism, Benjamin Noys

and Noys 3 examples of accelerationism:

 

Behaviourism is a psychology which begins with the needs of commodity production in order to develop methods with which to influence buyers, i.e., it is an active psychology, progressive and revolutionizing kathode (Kathoxen). In keeping with its capitalist function, it has its limits (the reflexes are biological; only in a few Chaplin films are they already social). Here, too, the path leads only over the dead body of capitalism, but here, too, this is a good path. – Brecht

There is only one way left to escape the alienation of present-day society: to retreat ahead of it.
Pleasure of the Text, Roland Barthes (1973)

One must push through to the other side rather than drag one’s heels.
The Exploit: A Theory of Networks, Galloway & Thacker (2007)

 

“Accelerationists argue that technology, particularly computer technology, and capitalism, particularly the most aggressive, global variety, should be massively sped up and intensified – either because this is the best way forward for humanity, or because there is no alternative. Accelerationists favour automation. They favour the further merging of the digital and the human. They often favour the deregulation of business, and drastically scaled-back government. They believe that people should stop deluding themselves that economic and technological progress can be controlled. They often believe that social and political upheaval has a value in itself.

Accelerationism, therefore, goes against conservatism, traditional socialism, social democracy, environmentalism, protectionism, populism, nationalism, localism and all the other ideologies that have sought to moderate or reverse the already hugely disruptive, seemingly runaway pace of change in the modern world.” – Accelerationism, Andy Beckett

“For Landian Accelerationism, capitalism is a machinic, ‘techonomic’ (technological-economic) explosion, whose self-reinforcing, self-excitatory mechanism is best modelled as a runaway cybernetic feedback loop (it should be said that if you’re a cyberneticist, everything is best modelled as a feedback loop). This just means that the immanent dynamics of capital push necessarily towards the ever-greater expansion of capital – Marx’s M-C-M’ circuit is cybernetic runaway par excellence – and immanent within that expansion is a necessary co-dependence of technological and economic advance, including ever-increasing powers of abstraction and computation. As ‘capital’ expands in both space and time (imperialism, futures’ markets), the market, understood in its Misesian sense as catallactic, itself becomes a sort of distributed computer for the calculation of prices, spontaneously generating collective intelligence far in excess of what humans are consciously capable of mastering. Thus, the market an sich is a form of ‘artificial superintelligence’ long before the computer is even invented. This is, in part, what Land means by the “teleological identity of capitalism and artificial intelligence.”- Accelerationism, Left and Right, Park Macdougald

 

 LEFT-ACCELERATIONISM (L/Acc):

 

Left-Accelerationism  wants to accelerate technology for the benefit of mankind, beyond the oppressive nature of capitalism, to utilize modern technology as a means of emancipating man from a life of work, to use technology in a socially beneficial way (automation etc.)

 

Probably the most read and prolific text with regards to accelerationism is Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek’s #ACCELERATE MANIFESTO for an Accelerationist Politics.

 

Also: #Accelerate. The Accelerationist Reader

 

 

“[Inventing the Future by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams] consistently refers to its future not as communism, but “postcapitalism.” It’s a world without work, but also without the commons. “The theory of the Communists,” write Marx and Engels, “may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” But here, private property remains untouched. The productive apparatuses are to be fully automated, removing workers as much as possible from every stage of the production process: who, then, will own them? Who will own the commodities that these apparatuses produce? And if humanity is unburdened from the need to work and left to produce freely in the pursuit of its own self-expression, who will own that? Without anything to oppose bourgeois property, the result could be fully monstrous: a bloated, gluttonous ruling class engaged in limitless production, and recapturing any losses when the new peons come to spend their universal basic pittance. The propertied classes would fuse with an automaton that requires no human parts except for ownership to form a single apparatus; Utopia as a cyborg dictatorship.

This future has, in fact, already been described – it’s E.M. Forster’s 1909 science-fiction story The Machine Stops. Here, all of humanity lives in tiny cells within the body of the vast subterranean Machine. The Machine produces all their consumer goods, it provides them with anything they might want or need at a moment’s notice, it speaks to them, and allows them to speak to each other through video-messaging. People tend not to leave their cells; it’s not forbidden, but it’s certainly not encouraged. Full automation. Universal basic income. A networked society. In the end the Machine starts to slowly disintegrate. Billions die, and Forster, who had something of a reactionary streak, can only see this as a good thing. Who owns the Machine? The Machine does.” – The Future Has Already Happened, Sam Kriss

 

“Work for work’s sake is a perversity and a constraint imposed upon humanity by capitalism’s ideology of the work ethic. What accelerationism seeks is to allow human potential to escape from the trap set for it by contemporary capitalism.” – #Accelerationism: Remembering the Future, Nick Srnicek, Alex Williams and Armen Avanessian

“But politics is not all hopeless. Left Accelerationism is an alternative, and it’s the idea that the only way out of multinational late capitalism is through it. Capitalism has one direction at this point and that’s collapse. Either it collapses into socialism or fascism, but it’ll collapse. Technological growth is a consequence of capitalism and technology. It can and should be repurposed. Left acceleration anticipates this collapse and aims to utilize technology to not only nudge the collapse Leftward, but to seize control via a counter-hegemony symmetrical to right populism. Marxism for the 21st century is nothing if not left Accelelerationism.” – Nick Land & Accelerationism, Isaac Camacho

 

RIGHT-ACCELERATIONISM (R/Acc):

 

“Right-accelerationism has converged with neoreaction precisely because it identifies the deterritorialising force with capitalism itself: it sees itself as biting the bullet, and claiming that if we want to accept the liberating alienation of capitalism we also need to accept an inevitable return to the familiar feudal structures it fleetingly displaced. Whereas classical fascism used techno-capitalism as a means to the end of anti-modernism, neoreaction uses anti-modernism as a means to the end of techno-capitalism. This is why it is sillier than fascism in my opinion – because it has sacrificed whatever liberating force it initially ascribed to capitalist alienation upon the atavistic altar of feudal domination. It is the only strand of accelerationist thought that could be said to read the above paragraph and find something worth accelerating, at least insofar as it sees capital’s oppressive reconfiguration of the social space as the inevitable price techno-industrial development.” – So, Accelerationism, what’s all that about?

 

“Deleuze and Guattari’s machinic desire remorselessly stripped of all Bergsonian vitalism, and made backwards-compatible with Freud’s death drive and Schopenhauer’s Will. The Hegelian-Marxist motor of history is then transplanted into this pulsional nihilism: the idiotic autonomic Will no longer circulating idiotically on the spot, but upgraded into a drive, and guided by a quasi-teleological artificial intelligence attractor that draws terrestrial history over a series of intensive thresholds that have no eschatological point of consummation, and that reach empirical termination only contingently if and when its material substrate burns out. This is Hegelian-Marxist historical materialism inverted: Capital will not be ultimately unmasked as exploited labour power; rather, humans are the meat puppet of Capital, their identities and self-understandings are simulations that can and will ultimately be sloughed off.”- Mark Fisher

 

“Chalmers says there are four options for us in a post-singularity world: extinction, isolation, inferiority, and integration.

The first option is undesirable. The second option would keep us isolated from the AI, a kind of technological isolationism in which one world is blind to progress in the other. The third option may be infeasible because an AI++ would operate so much faster than us that inferiority is only a blink of time on the way to extinction.

For the fourth option to work, we would need to become superintelligent machines ourselves. One path to this mind be mind uploading, which comes in several varieties and has implications for our notions of consciousness and personal identity that Chalmers discusses but I will not.” – The Singularity

The Singularity: A Philosophical AnalysisDavid Chalmers

 

UNCONDITIONAL ACCELERATIONISM (U/Acc):

 

Unconditional accelerationism begins with a renunciation of the retrograde politicisation to which accelerationism has fallen subject. It denounces the tedious political forms and utopian humanist fantasies of the self-titled left-accelerationists, their high-modernist pretence to control over the uncontrollable. That Srnicek and Williams identify Land’s work as pointing merely to an indefinite steady state of ‘neoliberalism’ betrays the radical limitations of their conceptual universe. The triumphal march of capital does not begin and end with a historically limited human ideology.

Unconditional accelerationism rejects simultaneously the right-accelerationists’ Yudkowskian concern with control and evaluation, with shaping the explosion of modernity, with guaranteeing its heterogeneity, with exploring the possibilities of a supposedly ever-improving transhumanism. The aggregate improvement of humanity’s condition is, to be sure, a fact to which the traditional left seems incapable of responding. But beyond the nostrums of race and nation, the right-accelerationists seem all too anxious over the tearing-apart of humanity that this process has increasingly entailed. Despite their claim to a radical and ‘dark’ identity with acceleration, they model with bureaucratic pedantry forms of government within which they hope the explosion can be moulded and recuperated.

Against all this the unconditional accelerationist celebrates and intensifies the fire of modernity as a whole: both the flows of capital that compress the world ever tighter in a liquid despotism of the machine that is remodelling and resequencing humanity, and the flows of social cybernetics that are overwhelming political institutions, turning despite themselves towards terminal delirium. In the West, it is Frankenstein that constitutes the figure determining modernity’s course: the tool that overthrows its master. Trade. Social media. Artificial intelligence. In cybernetic modernity the story is repeated over and again. Unconditional accelerationism identifies with this process of overthrow in its kaleidoscopic multiplicity. System disease. Weaponised nihilism. K-insurgency. – Acceleration without conditions, Vincent Garton

 

REAL LEFT ACCELERATIONISM:

The distance ‘to’ communism and towards the creation of the material basis for communism can be shortened by means of accelerating capitalism. Capitalism blinded by its insatiable hunger for self-expansion doesn’t produce with living conditions of the producers in mind, as such, taking reference from Marx’s Capital, Jehu’s R-L/Acc is a utilization of capital’s blind self-acceleration towards an abrupt ulterior (communism), the material basis of which is slowly (unknowingly) built during the accelerative process.

“Of course, capitalism does not intentionally lay the material basis for communism, but the creation of the material basis for communism is the necessary result of capital’s incessant revolutionizing of the forces of production of material wealth. Communism, Marx argues, is the necessary, though unintended, by-product of capital’s own relentless self-expansion.

Even if we assume that capitalism creates the material basis for communism, this does not imply the process itself can be sped up. What is it about the unconscious manner capitalism creates the material basis for communism that makes an accelerationist program possible?” – Making a Marxian labor theory case for  an accelerationist strategy, Jehu

“The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa, the means of production are not mere means for a constant expansion of the living process of the society of producers.” – Capital, Karl Marx

“According to Marx, the limited aim of capitalist accumulation is itself a barrier to the completion of its historical mission to create the material basis for communism — and this requires an important caveat: Capital is only concerned about its self-expansion and nothing we do can alter this essential character. While capital is creating the material basis for communism, it does this in a self-contradictory way as the blind working of the laws inherent to the mode of production.

The case for intervention is the blind, unconscious character of capitalist accumulation itself.

Marx explains what happened when England introduced a limit on the duration of the working day that had the effect of limiting the aggregate duration of both paid and unpaid hours of labor: Capital immediately went to work on means to circumvent this limit by intensifying the exploitation of wage labor within the new shorter work day.

These new means of evading the cap on aggregate labor time included new technologies, more advanced science, increasing efficiency of labor time and materials, new organization. The shortening of the labor day also facilitated this intensification because the workers could labor more intensely in shorter bursts. As a result of the shortened working day, economic expansion, i.e., capitalist accumulation rose five-fold.” – Making a Marxian labor theory case for  an accelerationist strategy, Jehu

ACC/EXTRA:

 

MeltdownNick Land

 

CyberpositiveSadie Plant and Nick Land

 

LA 2019: Demopathy and XenogenesisIain Hamilton Grant

 

Swarmachines – CCRU

 

Nowhere fast? A brief critique of the Accelerationist Manifesto – J D Taylor

 

Some Reflections on the #ACCELERATE MANIFESTO – Antonio Negri

 

A Quick and Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism – Nick Land

 

Fragments on MachinesKarl Marx

 

#rhetttwitter


 

 DARK-ENLIGHTENMENT, NEOREACTION (NRx):

 

We’ve been attempting to re-order society on the basis of equality for a very long time, we’ve been trying to make everybody and everything equal as best we can, we’ve noticed unjust and unfair systems and have tried are damned best to work them through and make everything ‘right’. It hasn’t worked, why? People just don’t want to cooperate; our attempts at making life better for people via utilization of modern scientific and technologic innovations have failed miserably. Why is this? Well, humans are far more complex than any seemingly transparent equality system we conjure up. Our inability as the human-race to not fit in means any machinery or processes we create, which in their creation are ‘tight’ and intricate, eventually end up being bastardised towards our lack of complacency. The majority of systems have ignored Hobbes and have completely forgotten that man is animal and is constantly competing for power, influence, wealth and (now) fame. Limitations merely create competition as opposed to equality, the stakes get higher and higher, the tension builds until the split becomes a 5/95.

 

People have been lured in by quasi-innovation, their lives have become ‘better’ in the most comfortable ways, better quality mattresses, attainable food 24/7, high-fructose, MSG-pump, infantile knowledge sources that are easily digestible, maddeningly large amounts of high-end entertainment, a catastrophic amount of complex escapist systems and structures, all this innovation makes them feel as if their lives are going exactly as they should be, and that everything they need they have, whereas, the matter of fact is, this material camouflage only acts a defence mechanism against a failing, deteriorating and generally incapable government.

 

As far as where to begin with Neoreaction, I personally would recommend listening to the first hour of Nick Land’s recent interview with Red Ice Radio. It’s definitely one of the more accessible sources, and it means you can get to grips with a vast amount of material in a short time.

 

“Ultimately, however, if after all these centuries of trying to improve society based on abstract ideas of justice have only made life worse than it would have been under pre-Enlightenment social systems, the time has come to simply give up the whole project and revert to traditional forms whose basis we might not be able to establish rationally, but which have the evidence of history to support them.” – Introduction to Neoreaction

 

Welcome to the “Dark Enlightenment”: We are unequal and Western Civ is Unique and impossible to replicate.

Western civ is the product of individualistic aristocratic egalitarianism caused by indo european battle tactics learned as pastoral radiers. Objectivity, debate and science, and the unique western solution to the problems of politics and market are the product of the need to obtain consent from other peers, rather than obey a chosen leader. – Welcome a New Member

The Dark EnlightenmentNick Land

Neo-reactionaries head for the exit.”

“…winning elections is overwhelmingly a matter of vote buying, and society’s informational organs (education and media) are no more resistant to bribery than the electorate, a thrifty politician is simply an incompetent politician, and the democratic variant of Darwinism quickly eliminates such misfits from the gene pool.”

Where the progressive enlightenment sees political ideals, the dark enlightenment sees appetites.”

As the democratic virus burns through society, painstakingly accumulated habits and attitudes of forward-thinking, prudential, human and industrial investment, are replaced by a sterile, orgiastic consumerism, financial incontinence, and a ‘reality television’ political circus. “

By cropping out all high-frequency feedback mechanisms (such as market signals), and replacing them with sluggish, infra-red loops that pass through a centralized forum of ‘general will’, a radically democratized society insulates parasitism from what it does, transforming local, painfully dysfunctional, intolerable, and thus urgently corrected behavior patterns into global, numbed, and chronic socio-political pathologies. “

Once it is accepted universally, or, speaking more practically, by all social forces wielding significant cultural power, that intolerance is intolerable, political authority has legitimated anything and everything convenient to itself, without restraint. “

Firstly, the crime is augmented by a purely ideational, ideological, or even ‘spiritual’ element, attesting not only to a violation of civilized conduct, but also to a heretical intention. This facilitates the complete abstraction of hate from criminality, whereupon it takes the form of ‘hate-speech’ or simply ‘hate’ (which is always to be contrasted with the ‘passion’, ‘outrage’, or righteous ‘anger’ represented by critical, controversial, or merely abusive language directed against unprotected groups, social categories, or individuals). ‘Hate’ is an offense against the Cathedral itself, a refusal of its spiritual guidance, and a mental act of defiance against the manifest religious destiny of the world.”

“Secondly, and relatedly, ‘hate’ is deliberately and even strategically asymmetrical in respect to the equilibrium political polarity of advanced democratic societies. Between the relentless march of progress and the ineffective grouching of conservatism it does not vacillate. As we have seen, only the right can ‘hate’. As the doxological immunity system of ‘hate’ suppression is consolidated within elite educational and media systems, the highly selective distribution of protections ensures that ‘discourse’ – especially empowered discourse – is ratcheted consistently to the left, which is to say, in the direction of an ever more comprehensively radicalized Universalism. The morbidity of this trend is extreme.”

At its most abstract and all-encompassing, the liberal-progressive racial dialectic abolishes its outside, along with any possibility of principled consistency. It asserts — at one and the same time — that race does not exist, and that its socially-constructed pseudo-existence is an instrument of inter-racial violence.”

Above quotes from: The Dark Enlightenment.

Another key reactionary is Mencius Moldbug who’s archived blog Unqualified Reservations displayed a ferocious appetite directed at underpinning and explaining contemporary political, technological and social problems.

The other day I was tinkering around in my garage and I decided to build a new ideology.”

In my experience, most sensible people consider themselves “moderate,” “centrist,” “independent,” “unideological,” “pragmatic,” “apolitical,” etc. Considering the vast tragedies wrought by 20th-century politics, this attitude is quite understandable. It is also, in my opinion, responsible for most of the death and destruction in the world today…”

“…the problem with moderation is that the “center” is not fixed. It moves. And since it moves, and people being people, people will try to move it. This creates an incentive for violence – something we formalists try to avoid.”

Replacing your own ideology is a lot like do-it-yourself brain surgery. It requires patience, tolerance, a high pain threshold, and very steady hands…”

…There is no point in starting this messy experiment only to install some other ideology that’s the way it is just because someone said so. Formalism, as we’ll see, is an ideology designed by geeks for other geeks. It’s not a kit. It doesn’t come with batteries. You can’t just pop it in. At best, it’s a rough starting point to help you build your own DIY ideology. If you’re not comfortable working with a table saw, an oscilloscope and an autoclave, formalism is not for you.” – Formalist Manifesto

“I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”- The Education of a Libertarian

Neoreactionary Movement – Rational Wiki

 

Geeks For Monarchy: Rise of the Neoreactionaries – Klint Finley

 

Dark Enlightenment Reading List

 

Social Matter – Contains a weekly ‘This Week in Reaction’

 

Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous Planet Sized Nutshell

 

The Dark Enlightenment for Newbies

 

Moldbug’s Gentle Introduction

 

Moldbug’s Open Letter

22nd May, 2017.

 

 

 

A Micro-Zeitgeist Post of 22nd May, 2017 – (I do not agree, nor disagree with any/all of these opinions, these were merely those which struck me as important from that dreadful day.)

 

 

Link to first Tweet in thread above, whole thread in text below –

“Need to get some stuff off my chest about this attack, so bear with me.

This one feels…..different. I don’t know why or if it should but it does. Once again, innocent people are horribly maimed and murdered. Once gain, the central theme of this attack: Islamic Hatred.
Once again, a suspect “known” to police but able to freely walk the streets is able to carry out horrifying, brutal slaughter of innocent people. This time, many of them children. Many of them female children. And western feminists will either remain silent, or blame men/patriachy while ignoring the part about Islam. How long will the west fail its people, but especially its women? The Rotherham rape gangs, grooming young native British girls to be used as sex slaves. These muslims were taught that this was acceptable because western women are to be used this way. That they deserve it. That this is all they are good for. But the most heinous part is how, for some reason I can’t begin to comprehend, the govt allowed it. It failed in its primary duty to protect its citizens. It turned the other cheek and ignored every report, every desperate plea, every warning sign…all for the sake of some nebulous concept of diversity, and multiculturalism. Of tolerance, but as one-way street. They allowed uneducated, unskilled third world hordes in to their countries and never even once thought to make these invaders assimilate to their host culture. They took root, festered, and spread like a disease. Like a cancer, infecting and killing the host culture around it. And if anyone dared raise an objection, they brow-beaten, ostracized, and smacked down as “biots”, “racists”, “Islamophobes”. As if fear of Islam could somehow be irrational. Given what the west has been through. What they have experienced. What they have seen with their own eyes…their citizenry is expected to just accept this as part of daily life in the modern world, while the elites live in gated communities with private security. Not only are they expecting to live with it, they’re subtly made to feel guilty for even questioning it. Made to feel as if, to atone for the sins of their fathers of generation upon generation before them, that they DESERVE this.

And I am fucking sick of it. I’m done. I had a very hard tim sleeping last night. Worse than any of these other attacks that have recently led up to this. Maybe it’s the straw that broke the camels back, maybe its the target this time, maybe its everything, but its time to draw a line in the sand. It’s time to say “This is as far as you go. And the repercussions for your misdeeds are going to be beyond anything you could’ve imagined”. Not all muslims are terrorists. We know this. But if we’re being brutally honest, the entire islamic world is not doing enough to addres this within their own ranks. The “moderates” are simply not pulling their weight if they want to be a part of the modern world. So the “peaceful” uslims need to either get with the program, or go back to where their people come from. Because the honest truth is Islam, in its current form, is incompatible with Western Civilization. It, by and large, brings nothing of value to the table. It simply is not worth the risk to western society to allow them to coexist if they will not stand up to the radicals in their ranks. And the grovelling, simpering leftists will try to say “but…the crusades” or “but…bigotry causes this.” Unacceptable and incorrect. And to be honest, the western leftist enablers…the collaborators…who have alloed this to happen time and time and time again all while never holding Muslims to account and blaming western civilization for being the reason this happens. I absolutely, 100% mean this when I say it – you are traitors of the worst kind that history has ever seen. Your treason will not be forgotten, and at whatever the result of this is, you WILL be held accountable for it.

Until then, where do we start? It’s actually very simple:

No more unskilled, uneducated immigrants allowed entry. You have to prove your worth to be granted entrance to the west. Especially single, military aged (15-40 years old) men. Deny all entrance to that specific demographic unless they can prove they would be an invaluable contribution to society. Next, Muslims no longer receive special protection and get treated like everyone else. Held to the same standards. This means in the UK, radical islamic preaching is hate speech and you jail people for it just as easily as you would jail the 60 year old Briton for a “mean” tweet. “Islamophobia” is no longer a thing. Not an excuse to shield their bigotry. Islam will adapt to western rules, western ideals, or it will be sent back to muslim lands. One of the most effective measures that the entire continent of Europe could take would be to deny welfare/social benefits to all non-citizens. This would quickly stem the tide of econmoic migrants that bring nothing of value to European countries and leech off taxpaying Europeans. Next, all war refugees are only granted temporary asylum and will have to move back eventually if they can’t prove they would be an invaluable contribution to the western world. No more tolerance of the regressive triats of Islam. female genital mutilation, Sharia, full-veiled niqab/hijab, etc – all must be publicly denounced upon entry and violation of any will result in immediate deportation without appeal. If Islam wants to cohabitate with the west, it will bend the knee to Western Culture, or it will not be admitted. Any leftists who fight against this should be exiled as well. Our very culture is at stake here. We are under attack. we are at war. It’s time to take the gloves off and fight back /end.” – Wrongthink Warlord


” Here’s why I think the term “Islamophobia is justified – Many people who hate/fear Muslims can’t decide if it’s because they’re terrorists, rapists, freedom-haters, or pedophiles. The hysteria and catastrophizing, plus the shifting justifications (fear of terrorism vs. fear of pedophilia), suggest irrational fear. The fact that the horror and outrage is global (it’s directed as “Muslims” or “Islam”) while the details shift (terrorism vs. rape) reminds me of the visceral negative reactions people have to taboos like incest and cannibalism. We just hate and fear these things and are willing to shift justfication for those feelings the instant one is removed. None of this has any bearing whatsoever on whether Islam’s doctrines are ethical or sound. If the term “Islamophobia” is genuinely used to silence critixism of Islam (I’m a little skeptical but I’m sure it sometimes happens) then I agree that’s bad. But it’s clear to me that much of the prejudice against Muslims and Islam is more like an animal instinct that a rational critique. When you’re going on about “hordes”, “swarms” of rapist pedophile terrorist arsonist abusers, I get the impression that your objections are not based on a close reading of the Quran but something more primitive and raw. A phobia.” – ContraPoints


 

 


“friend talking about ISIS beheadin univ profs in Philippines: “will this become civil war there?”

me: “this is World War III”

WWIII began on 9/11/2001

It will probably take another 30-70 years to end.

The three conbatants are: US, PRC, Islam.

I expect at LEAST two of those combatants to be destroyed or fundamnetally restructured by the war.

So far the roles match up w WWII

Islam – Nazi Germany

US – Soviet Union

PRC – US

PRC is wisely sitting out the war. Let their two enemies soften each other us.

Just as US has an ocean to keep it safe from Hitler.

PRC has an iron fist in an also-iron glove, which can (mostly) keep it safe from domestic Islam.

US is fighting like Stalin – blinded by ideology we fight like idiots.

Him: purge officers!

Us: don’t bomb fuel tricks bc environment!

Like the Soviets, we are suffering massive (avoidable) losses becuase of out stupidity.

Stalin lost territory and lives.

So do we.

Europe is playing the role of France.

It’s rolling over, whimpering “don’t hurt me”, and giving up its J̶e̶w̶s̶ young girls.

I expect that WWIII will end like WWII did:

USA (now PRC): winning, controlling world.

USSR (now USA): #2 winner, totalitarian, terrible.

Islam: bombed into rubble, occupied, turned into PRC vassal state.

Result will be not dissimilar to the map from the Draka series.

US will control Western Hemisphere. PRC gets Africa, ME, Asia.” – ClarkHat


There’s only on way Britain should respond to attacks such as Manchester. That is by carrying on exactly as before. – The Independent


Islamic State: “Approximately 100 Crusaders Killed and Wounded by Explosive Devices Detonated in Manchester” – Jihadwatch

Britain 27 Sha’ban 1438

With Allah’s grace and support, a soldier of the Khilafah managed to place explosive devices in the midst of the gatherings of the Crusaders in the British city of Manchester, in revenge for Allah’s religion, in an endeavor to terrorize the mushrikin [those who worship others besides Allah], and in response to their transgressions against the lands of the Muslims. The explosive devices were detonated in the shameless concert arena, resulting in 30 Crusaders being killed and 70 others being wounded. And what comes next will be more severe on the worshipers of the Cross and their allies, by Allah’s permission. And all praiseis [sic] due to Allah, Lord of the creation.

“Crusaders.” Most of the people at that Ariana Grande concert probably had no idea what a Crusader was. Those who did were sure that they were racist bigots who carried out acts of imperialist aggression against peaceful Muslims. “Crusaders.” This is not a war between jihadis and Crusaders. This is a war between jihadis and ignorant, complacent sitting ducks who have been willfully and criminally misled by the political and media elites


Reddit’s ‘live feed’ of links as the vent went down – here.


Muslim community worker warned officers about Manchester bomber five years ago – The Metro


 

I’m going to leave it there, I’m trying to remain unbias here, though I imagine it may come across as leaning towards one side, though I believe much of what I’ve linked can be viewed from either perspective. As for how I personally feel, well, simply exhausted and depersonalized. Whether or not one feels either the ‘left’ or ‘right’ answers to the problem will work, the fact remains that some innocent people were killed, as an act of terrorism…in the year 2017, and day in day out, even though not physically, these attacks seem and feel to get closer to closer to something which I hold dear, and that, I cannot entirely describe. The end of something and the beginning of a sludge. It feels as if innovation has no home anymore, the means to gain are only to steal and destroy, deconstruction holds itself very dear to everything, all begins to depersonalize as enjoyment and youth itself is attacked, one often feels guilty for smirking. I’m getting sickly-sentimental, but, it truly is a matter of fatigue, one could head to any reliable news source on any given day and find an ‘attack’ from sombody towards an-Other, people killing others as they know it’s right. Progression itself has become a toxic force for its direct opposite.

Escaping the Echo Part 4: Cautious Directions

I was luckily allowed to bear witness to the ‘in’ and as such I began to head out, once out I looked into what I was told, and told myself I never could, the opposition. Not just those who were wrong, but those who opinions were supposedly void of humanity and understanding, yet my questioning lead me to wonder “Why then, were so many people flocking to these horrible ideas?” It couldn’t be that there were simply that many ‘mean’ people, or that a certain side really were as self-centred as I’d been lead to believe. Not at all, there were sound arguments all around, everywhere I looked were fragments and pieces looking to be taken and reassembled.

 

Many who read Part 3 may have become worried that I simply subscribed to the neoreactionary opinions as quickly as I did with those of the left, not at all, one of the reasons that I brought up reactionary thought and that of The Dark Enlightenment, was the fact that they were the ones to take me completely outside of my previous prison, not like Chomsky, who only moves you to a cell with a view of the control room, which he himself occasionally delivers mail to. Of course with all this in mind, thought-prisons, possibility for escape etc. it is of course extremely difficult to know if what you are thinking is entirely you’re own thought and not part of some longer prior stage of indoctrination, this is the exact reason for the inclusion of TDE, because it took some values of mine which I truly believed, even when not connected to an ideology, were the right thing and unquestionable in their direction.

 

Now I am here, left alone, wandering and torn between becoming once more a potential sponge for programmed response, or a nomad, free of ideal, the latter is difficult, if not exhausting in its possibility. The point if there should be one, of these 4 posts was to address a journey into truly thinking as freely as possible, without help I would have been in the quick-sand forever, not struggling, not wanting help, but actually enjoying my stay…or at least telling myself I was enjoying it.

 

The path now is not direct as it was before, and this, to me, is perfection. If what lies ahead is a path completely linear without the smallest of curve, be worried, the path may have been set for you, the destination pre-planned by a malicious other, question the easiness. I cannot say much more. I shall, re-work, condense and come back to you.

 

A few notes of practicality, a list:

 

1. I do not subscribe, agree completely with the thought of The Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Mencius Moldbug and most definitely not that of the Alt-right, I hope I have made this clear.

 

1.1. The reason I brought up The Dark Enlightenment and Neo/reactionary thought was because their writings helped set me free, that’s not to say I agreed with them, merely, they made some great points that can be utilized as tools.

 

2. A condensation of these posts would be: Think for yourself. Of course, rarely do people actually tell you how…I most certainly can’t, the point would be to say: I hope these posts show you how I got to a point where I now believe I’m thinking – at least 95%+ freely.

 

3. Ask questions in comments…

 

PART 1: https://www.meta-nomad.net/?p=80

PART 2: https://www.meta-nomad.net/?p=82

PART 3: https://www.meta-nomad.net/?p=87

Escaping the Echo Part 3: A Nomadic Route

The doors had been opened and I could leave, I’d finally been allowed to head for the exit…to have knowledge of an exit, but where was I to go, where to now? I’d left the comfort and warmth of an apathetic cocoon that was heading towards a nothingness. Now, stranded I had become a nomad of political thought, without attachment, existing in flux between -isms and -ologies, and without need or want to be once again suffocated, but a direction was needed, to stand absolutely still would be almost worse than my previous dwelling. So what of those who I so scorned, the right-wing, the Tories, the Nationalists, the ‘Mails’? All this time I had known what they said simply could-not fit in with my world-view, but now?

Instead of venturing into the truly dark recesses of simply another ignorance, into an antithesis of the prior, I noted the recent. The reactionaries are here, they’re making some noise, some strange prefix-nationalist, techno-suffix noise that seems odd, new, honest? There was potential, and so I began my descent into a world I never thought I’d want to work out, or justify. Why there first of all? If you were to leave a cage of your own creation, would you not want to experience what you told yourself you shouldn’t?

I ventured to Google, which in turn directed to me to Wikipedia: The Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction. I’d heard of the last one, but the others not so much, so I began, a new ignorance, however this time, I hoped, only containing a material ignorance of history and not that of substance and hypocrisy.

Neo-reactionaries head for the exit.” that’s how this thing starts, damn. An acknowledgement that they want out, that there’s an ‘in’, a widely accepted elusive ‘inside’ and it’s being questioned, good. The piece was illuminating…de-luminating? See for yourself.

I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” a quote within TDE referencing this article from ‘09: “Cyberspace, outer-space and seasteading”, possibilities of exit.

As my brain begins to tumble further towards an expanse of possibility, of reminiscence towards my previous control.

winning elections is overwhelmingly a matter of vote buying, and society’s informational organs (education and media) are no more resistant to bribery than the electorate, a thrifty politician is simply an incompetent politician, and the democratic variant of Darwinism quickly eliminates such misfits from the gene pool.” – TDE

I was ‘in’, bought, paid-for and housed…

Where the progressive enlightenment sees political ideals, the dark enlightenment sees appetites.” – TDE

As the democratic virus burns through society, painstakingly accumulated habits and attitudes of forward-thinking, prudential, human and industrial investment, are replaced by a sterile, orgiastic consumerism, financial incontinence, and a ‘reality television’ political circus. “- TDE

controlled and entertained, they say the ‘Alternative-facts’ boosted sales of Orwell’s 1984, yet Huxley’s Brave New World seems more appropriate.

By cropping out all high-frequency feedback mechanisms (such as market signals), and replacing them with sluggish, infra-red loops that pass through a centralized forum of ‘general will’, a radically democratized society insulates parasitism from what it does, transforming local, painfully dysfunctional, intolerable, and thus urgently corrected behavior patterns into global, numbed, and chronic socio-political pathologies. “- TDE

Once it is accepted universally, or, speaking more practically, by all social forces wielding significant cultural power, that intolerance is intolerable, political authority has legitimated anything and everything convenient to itself, without restraint. “- TDE

Firstly, the crime is augmented by a purely ideational, ideological, or even ‘spiritual’ element, attesting not only to a violation of civilized conduct, but also to a heretical intention. This facilitates the complete abstraction of hate from criminality, whereupon it takes the form of ‘hate-speech’ or simply ‘hate’ (which is always to be contrasted with the ‘passion’, ‘outrage’, or righteous ‘anger’ represented by critical, controversial, or merely abusive language directed against unprotected groups, social categories, or individuals). ‘Hate’ is an offense against the Cathedral itself, a refusal of its spiritual guidance, and a mental act of defiance against the manifest religious destiny of the world.”-TDE

“Secondly, and relatedly, ‘hate’ is deliberately and even strategically asymmetrical in respect to the equilibrium political polarity of advanced democratic societies. Between the relentless march of progress and the ineffective grouching of conservatism it does not vacillate. As we have seen, only the right can ‘hate’. As the doxological immunity system of ‘hate’ suppression is consolidated within elite educational and media systems, the highly selective distribution of protections ensures that ‘discourse’ – especially empowered discourse – is ratcheted consistently to the left, which is to say, in the direction of an ever more comprehensively radicalized Universalism. The morbidity of this trend is extreme.”-TDE

At its most abstract and all-encompassing, the liberal-progressive racial dialectic abolishes its outside, along with any possibility of principled consistency. It asserts — at one and the same time — that race does not exist, and that its socially-constructed pseudo-existence is an instrument of inter-racial violence.”-TDE

All of the above quotes are from Nick Land’s – The Dark Enlightenment, which can be found here.

I stopped a little short with the quotes, I was engrossed, that’s not to say I agreed with everything Land was saying – not by a long shot – namely that what he was saying was so completely free that the process of reading became rather epiphanic in itself. Filled to the brim with pop-culture analogies, complex political understanding, stats, tech-adoration and a general sense of being written whilst sat next to Deckard, at least, if anything, TDE is original, in an  ‘outside’ sense.

Within TDE I found there was often talk of a person called Mencius Moldbug, the pen name of Curtis Yarvin an American political theorist, computer scientist and ‘founding’ neoreactionary, he’s been called (by Land) the Sith Lord of the movement. It seems Moldbug stopped posting to his neoreactionary focused blog Unqualified Reservations in April 2014, with one update to confirm this in 2016, however since then fellow reactionaries have done a very good job of compiling Moldbug’s key writings into neat packages which can be found here and the ‘formalist manifesto (FM)’ I reference is here.

So, where are we now headed, well, it seems Moldbug is reiterating a lot of the points Land is making, well, actually, Moldbug was writing ‘directly’ about reactionary/DE thought before Land, publicly that is, however it was Land who coined the term Dark Enlightenment.

 

The other day I was tinkering around in my garage and I decided to build a new ideology.” – FM

Yeah, Land and Moldbug really know how to write an opener. The nonchalant creation of a new ideology is precisely how Moldbug’s manifesto begins.

Moldbug continues to discuss Progressivism and Conservatism. Slating both, of course. Note: My escape from both (strangely) was caused by the Post-Brexit dialogue, discussed in my previous post. So, two of the main factions of politics are out of the window, both of which have been discussed in serious depth throughout reactionary writing, where to now…neutral?

In my experience, most sensible people consider themselves “moderate,” “centrist,” “independent,” “unideological,” “pragmatic,” “apolitical,” etc. Considering the vast tragedies wrought by 20th-century politics, this attitude is quite understandable. It is also, in my opinion, responsible for most of the death and destruction in the world today…” – FM

…the problem with moderation is that the “center” is not fixed. It moves. And since it moves, and people being people, people will try to move it. This creates an incentive for violence – something we formalists try to avoid.”- FM

Shit. Moldbug briefly mentions libertarianism and the Mises Insititute, of course implementation of a libertarian society would be difficult, so what’s next: Formalism.

Replacing your own ideology is a lot like do-it-yourself brain surgery. It requires patience, tolerance, a high pain threshold, and very steady hands…”-FM

…There is no point in starting this messy experiment only to install some other ideology that’s the way it is just because someone said so. Formalism, as we’ll see, is an ideology designed by geeks for other geeks. It’s not a kit. It doesn’t come with batteries. You can’t just pop it in. At best, it’s a rough starting point to help you build your own DIY ideology. If you’re not comfortable working with a table saw, an oscilloscope and an autoclave, formalism is not for you.”-FM

And I shall also throw in some other gems from Moldbug’s Open Letter:

But you have not shared humanity’s experience. You have only read, heard and seen a corpus of text, audio and video compiled from it. And compiled by whom?” – Open Letter

Moldbug proceeds to mention (in his open letter) that just because you are or were a progressive doesn’t mean you now have to become a conservative, that maybe, just maybe, Fox News and NPR are both wrong, The Guardian and The Daily Mail are both wrong, Moldbug states that: “neither of them has any consistent relationship to reality.”- Open Letter (Note: He doesn’t mention the latter 2 examples). Millions of progressives believe conservatism is a mass delusion, and millions of conservatives believe…

Apologies for the mass copy-and-pasting going on here, but I’m attempting to describe a way, a journey, towards what Moldbug calls a ‘DIY ideology’, however, the point of this write-up is to articulate a point, a point that Moldbug also brings up:

…only to install some other ideology.” – FM

This post, I hope at least in some minor way will show prior to some strange ideology creation one must understand completely the current scope of their thought, if you’re still within the confines of Progressivism or Conservatism one would only be installing or creating some off-brand-ism the likes of which will of course fail. Moldbug’s formalism is aimed primarily at the U.S., in terms of the manifesto anyway, either than or I’m very short-sighted., thus I shall stop there in regards to its aims.

That said, here I am, I’ve gone through a couple of blenders and exited the other site a pulsing sludge, whose brain is reforming itself with larger exits and better entry-filtration systems. This isn’t to say I’ve found some new gospel in the Neoreaction movement, not at all, in fact I think to do so would be act the same as I was previously, except this time without years and years of prog indoctrination to help me. Moldbug’s idea of a DIY ideology fascinates me, and I believe it’s a great starting point out of the exit, the journey onwards I believe should be nomadic and tiresome, filled with exhausting readings of concealed books, criticism of critics who work within what they criticise, to not be so fucking blind.

 

POSTSCRIPT:

It sort of pains me to have to do this, even within mind.com’s anonymous being, however I want to state some things very clearly as certain people may wrongly read-between-the-lines here, so:

Firstly, I understand that The Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction are seen as a pair of roots for the Alt-right, I do NOT support the alt-right, Richard Spencer is a horrific example of a person, and a great example of ignorance and moving from one ideology to another, without thought of an outside.

Secondly, even though I have quoted in depth TDE and NRx, I do not support them, I hope this will become clearer in Part 4, where I talk of the dangers of adhering to an ideology in a generalized sense.

Thirdly, you may be thinking “So why did you use them as examples?” because they were the ones who opened the doors for me, now, just because they opened the doors doesn’t mean I am then at their will, in their act of opening, I became aware of the possibility of an outside. Put simply, they helped me think far more freely than I ever have, and it was via their rather controversial opinions of values never questioned that I arrived at where am I.

Much of this will be extrapolated on in Part 4.

 

 

LINKS IN ORDER:

 

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/24/george-orwell-1984-sales-surge-kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts

 

http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

 

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/

 

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

 

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html

 

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives.html

 

ESCAPING THE ECHO PREVIOUS PARTS:

https://www.meta-nomad.net/?p=80 PART 1

https://www.meta-nomad.net/?p=82 PART 2

Escaping the Echo Part 2: Post-Brexit Discourse

Brexit, 2016’s original political leviathan…till it got Trumped. It’s been done to death, the media had way more than a field day, opinion pieces coming out from every stinky uninformed crevice imaginable, but in this neo-Diana outpouring there was an elusive truth, hidden by the many.

 

Prior to the EU I’m sure there were those who hung EU flags from their house, I’m sure there were lists upon lists of reasons we should stay, I’m sure that a common topic of discussion was the EU and its benefits for Great Britain. Ok, I apologise for the conjecture, I understand that perhaps the EU was something we took for granted, I get that’s it’s not something one would speak about on a daily basis. However, as soon as this referendum hit it seems everyone and his dog knew all there was to know about the EU, why it’s great, why it’s bad, people who I’d never heard speak of anything political emerged from the woodwork speaking of the EU’s merits, or its inherent flaws, however the focal point of this piece isn’t on this dialogue, it’s on what happened after this dialogue…post-Brexit dialogue.

 

David Cameron decides to have a referendum as to whether or not we should leave the EU.

The British nation votes either leave or remain.

The decision voted in by the majority was to leave the EU

With 51.9% voting to leave, and 48.1% voting to remain, and 27.8% of the country not bothering.

It was a close one.

 

In an instantaneous flash consisting of two-bit memes and high pitched whinging the ‘remainers’ – those who voted to remain – began their supposedly just assault on democracy. “The results are too close!” they cried, “There should be another referendum” they argued, without even the subtlest hint of sarcasm, “They lied to us!” was also popular, and my personal favourites “This is undemocratic” and “This is NOT democracy.” In terms of my life so far, I can’t think of another two sentences of this length that have had such an impact on my way of thinking. 3 words, then 4, causing a structural shift in the framework of a brain. I’ll….remain forever thankful. Anyway, let’s annoy prog-remainers even more by doing something dated and archaic, a list:

  1. “There should be another referendum!”

There should absolutely, positively, 100% never be another referendum on whether or not we should leave the EU, why you ask? Because this is how democratic countries fuckin’ work, the people vote, and the largest majority win. To have another referendum just because one side didn’t get their preferred outcome would make the voting system entirely pointless.

 

  1. “The results are too close!”

So what if the results are only different by 1 or 2%? In terms of an entire country that’s a lot of people, majority wins in democracy – it is “rule of the majority” after all.

 

  1. “They lied to us!”

I’m sorry, is this literally your first experience of absolutely anything political? People lie to get the result they wish, and to be quite honest if you really thought that as soon as the decision was made £350 million would go straight into the NHS – in regards to Farage’s bus – then to be quite honest, you’re far too precious to be anywhere near this kind of thing.

3. “This is undemocratic”

Are you done laughing? Good. I added two little quotes on democracy in regards to the Brexit decision because I find it unapologetically hilarious, to say that a democrat referendum open to the entire country that’s winning outcome was based on majority vote is being called undemocratic. Do I have to explain this further?

4. “This is NOT democracy”

 

There’s nothing else to add here other that: “This is democracy!”

So, what unites all this talk, all this dialogue and discussion from one side, what makes everyone come together and suddenly understand it all? One simple factor – well actually, one simple phrase can sum it all up –

“No one can do, say or decide anything unless it’s in agreement with what I/we want!”

That’s it, the remainers only believe in democracy when it works in their favour, the system is only working when WE win. It’s utter narcissism and the whining that follows it should be shunned and laughed out of the room.

What did I get from all this? My eyes torn open, a side of politics I had been aligned with my entire life just let its guard down, it just let everyone know what it has at its root, a little piece of the other side…the one they apparently despise.

Everything I’d known had just been ripped apart, not instantly however, it took a few days/weeks for the gears to crank back enough paces for me to, well…begin again. I’d been controlled by an echo-chamber of self-interest and inclusion, and now the toys have dropped from the crib, the kids begin to panic and scream and whine, the curtain has been torn back and what you’re left with is a shambling spindly mess of a system, help up by little more than conjecture of the cliché idea of what it is to be good. To believe you’re doing the virtuous thing is enough, that’ll do, or perhaps you’re just bullshitting yourself.

https://www.meta-nomad.net/?p=80 PART 1

Escaping the Echo Part 1: Drowning in Progressivism

“There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

This short didactic little parable was used at the start of David Foster Wallace’s commencement speech at Kenyon College in 2005. The original intention of which was to bring liberal-arts-education students outside of their own (often) solipsistic perspective, making it clear that: “the most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are often the ones that are the hardest to see and talk about.”.

Much like many close friends I was part of a dialogue that was entirely suffocated by its own virtuous justification, we are the ones that are right, we are pushing for the best possible future, forward we must go, never looking back, for we are good! Everything that we were discussing could never escape our own perspective of what we had be taught ‘progress’ was. Whig history encapsulated basically, there’s not much more to it than just letting things happen and expecting…believing they are getting better, and to truly question, look and step-outside this view of the world was a bad, ignorant and even offensive idea. Well, I’m here to say “What the hell is water?”

2016 was one hell of year, I mean who’d have thought that people who are getting old might actually die, I mean really, who would have thought that people nearing, if not long past the average age of life-expectancy would actually die. All mortality jokes aside 2016 was some serious ju-ju, Brexit, Trump, global terrorism, death of the dream and various literal manifestations of a failing system that was refusing to confront its own weak supports. These various moments helped bring to light the obvious, made to reveal itself from its supposedly justified concealment, that’s not to say 2014 or 2015 were any better, merely that the events that transpired in 2016 were a serious help in terms of – accidentally – allowing people to understand that they can still think freely, they can still head for the exit.

Needless to say I was drowning in liberal progressive pandering, whiggish-apathy and a generalized acceptance that what everyone was doing was correct and should just…progress. I thought highly of Chomsky, and not once did I stop and think about his high status as a professor within the system he constantly berates. I voted to remain in the EU and very quickly came to realise that perhaps leaving isn’t going to be the end of everything-ever, and may potentially stop the unfiltered dialogues of the left, I was somewhat of a feminist and couldn’t bring myself to critisize a system which had in place methods to stop any criticism, via simply manipulating the view of how much power it had over mainstream media. I thought Jeremy Corbyn was the best hope for my country, not once did I think to question his motives in terms of constraining the element of free speech and true thought towards the parties own political gains. The binary morality of the left was becoming all too heavy on some very flimsy supports which eventually cracked and tumbled thanks to various thinkers and writings (the likes of which I shall go into in Part 2.).

This is not to say that I ever thought anything was a simple case of one movement being right and the other being wrong, it’s more that I didn’t realise that the progressive system in general was moving towards this type of reductionist thinking, not accidentally or via some chaotic chance, but purposely moving towards a tighter range of discussion to further their ideology, oppressing the range of accepted public opinion to such an extent that even merely questioning the motives of certain political groups who have you deemed as a racist, mysogynist or nazi.

Think of this first post as an overview, a blueprint of a failed system, my short history of following a step-by-step  guide towards a failed state, how naive, how silly, how truly ignorant of me to not listen, not look at what was right under my nose all this time, and not only did I smell it, see it and feel it, I also believed it to be true, correct and the only possible way. It isn’t.