Interview: On Z/Acc – Parallax Optics

Original location can be found here:

A big thank you to Parallax Optics for putting this together.




As a theorist Meta-Nomad’s method is deeply synthetic. Out of a delirious synthesis of Kant, Marx, Deleuze, Land, Serres, Greer and innumerable others, Meta-Nomad arrives at the apocalyptic vision of Zero Accelerationism. Z/Acc is the ultimate Black Pill – simultaneously the productive motor and great filter pulsating at the core of Accelerationism.

During our pre-interview discussion, you outlined the conceptual territory of Z/Acc as one which includes – at a minimum – collapse, cybernetics, determinism, Accelerationism, anti-humanism and a transcendental understanding of politics. These are deeply complex, higher-order concepts which some readers may be unfamiliar with. I’d like to begin by inviting you to unpack / interrelate each of these, from your own particular perspective.

So, you asked me to unpack some key topics which I lucidly ascribed to Z/Acc, namely: Collapse, Cybernetics, Determinism, Accelerationism, Anti-Humanism and a transcendental understanding of politics. Now, I will get to those in time, but in thinking about those ideas I hit so many mental blocks with regards to articulation that I believe a hasty retreat is needed, both for my own sanity regarding Z/Acc and for means of articulation. It’s something Heidegger and Kant understood well, if you begin at an incorrect conclusion or junction, then what follows is complex-conjecture, of course, in the Deleuzian manner, those caught in the middle of a year’s long dogmatic conversation – as with those caught in a machinic process – know no different.

Firstly, let’s begin with Accelerationism (from now on ‘ACC’). I will admit to a multitude of frustrations regarding where this term has been forcefully – with agency – taken. This humanist rerouting of the term has caused nothing but confusion, annoyance and ignorance as far as I’m concerned. A large majority of the people who’ve been working with the theory of ACC are reluctant to say ACC means X or Y precisely because the process itself eludes definition; much like capitalism – and we have to remember, ACC is Capitalism(ism) – ACC rebuilds and deconstructs itself continually, fits and starts etc. This is nothing new of course, but this also works with respect to simple phenomena. ACC is Kantian, and Kant is most importantly a philosopher of time. You could argue he’s a philosopher of time and space and I wouldn’t argue back, but he made sure that time was always the former in that duo. Space is simply the ‘space’ which time uses to perform various tortures. Now, if to take this as a sort of proof that ACC is primarily a theory of time is seen as syllogistic, I don’t entirely care, ACC is time in-itself, it is process. In some way we can say it’s the ‘why’ of Heraclitus’ river, but I don’t think that helps matters.

Anyway, back to the problem of phenomena in relation to ACC. I’m assuming here that the reader is familiar with Kant’s transcendental aesthetic. What capitalism is, in its most unconscious, meta-historical and teleoplexic sense, is the Singularity. Of course, there’s a wide array of aesthetic attachments to the Singularity, Skynet etc. and these are all interesting and fun to think about, but at its most Kantian-Materialist (Landian) sense, it’s the temporal formation of a gateway between phenomena and noumena, a gateway which utilizes virulent language forms (Maths, Kabbalah, Alphanomics, Code etc.) as a way for synthetic a priori knowledge to be possible. We can’t say that such knowledge wasn’t possible prior to the ‘event’ of capitalism, we could say however that if such knowledge existed, it wasn’t created or found with a vector already targeted at its own uncovering. Counting the sheep in one’s field, is far different to the min-maxing of crop yield. You’re thinking what the hell does any of this have to do with contemporary assumptions regarding ACC or even Z/Acc? Good question. See, as the gateway (Zero) pulses, erodes, fluxes, mutates, corrodes and…works, we find a form of communication coming through from the Outside (‘through’ is a false term, no directional term works correctly with Critique, it’s used only for ease of understanding). Am I a Serresean in the sense that I think communication is greater than production, no, they’re of equal merit. What is produced – with, alongside as often as production-in-itself – in the Outside, is communicated as phenomena on the Inside, unfortunately, our cognitive faculties are lacking in multiple respects, senses and sensation is already void of a large multitude of needs required to decipher the goal-oriented potential of these phenomena.

When people begin talking about ACC as people wanting to bring about the collapse of society, or it meaning X, Y or Z, they are almost always doing so in the respect of an I, they, ego or humanism. I will put my neck on the line here and simply state that if you are taking ACC to mean something like this, you are wrong. Wrong in both your sense of understanding the underpinning philosophy, and also incorrect in understanding how your desires, thoughts and pronouncements are affecting the gateway; not that anyone has such power, but hyperstition can really fuck the vector, James Mason’s Siege is the clearest example. He places the word ACC in that text and takes it to mean those who wish to bring about the end of society.

Perhaps you could briefly unpack Hyperstition as a concept / process and relate it back to ACC?

Hyperstition is a portmanteau of ‘superstition’ and ‘hyper’ created by the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit in the 1990’s, and is a conception which tracks and adheres to the evolutionary success of an idea within culture or; the abstract definition of the way in which an idea infects culture from the Outside.

Not only are ‘Hyperstitions’ successful ideas, but they influence the course of events, they are nodes of possible futures. Hyperstitional ideas are assimilated into culture under the covert, mainstream mechanism of fiction, and likewise, act as if fictional. In this manner the future can be retroactively traced by the analysis of fiction becoming fact. Religious or mystic teaching, Occult conspiracies or theories, sci-fi or mutated fantasy, socio-economic predictions or crypto-political –prophecies all begin their lives as minute fictions, emanating from both creative cultural anxiety and moments of Outsideness invasion.

By moments of Outsideness invasion, what I mean to say is commonplace happening or events which are often subsumed into the contemporary psychological guise of coincidences, which is the materialist way of saying ‘We can’t really explain what happened, but the Outside isn’t real… so it can’t be that!’. Ultimately, Hyperstitions couldn’t care less about whether or not you believe in them; it doesn’t matter if you believe in the monsters, it only matters if they believe in you. Anyway, Hyperstitions don’t really care at all, they are most aptly described as immanent symbolisms communed with via fiction. When one looks at a clear leap forward within history one will find, retroactively attached to it, a fiction. That is to say, what is now fact, was once fiction.

Quite lazily Hyperstition has entered culture itself as ‘self-fulfilling’ prophecy, or ‘the law of attraction’, but both these terms humanize its trajectory, leaving its purpose as suspiciously clear. Wherein actuality, what we witness when such a Hyperstitional synchronicity occurs, is the Outside coming in. When one walks into a room and covertly understands that they should leave, or intuits they should not head down a certain path, what they are intuiting is the injection of the Outside as Hyperstitional feedback, or in – very – short, they are intuiting the creation of a new reality, or at least, the mutation of the current reality.

Hyperstitional mechanisms open channels to the Outside, encouraging a reality of belief as opposed to belief in a single reality. When linear, Westernized History comes face to face with Hyperstition it folds into itself under the weight of the Outside. When you mix academic history with Hyperstition you create a theoretical substance which acidically burns off the layers of rationalist prayer, and humanist pseudo-safety. Hyperstition makes history possible.

Now, as soon as we’re talking about wants, theys and human-desires we are no longer talking about ACC as the process, which is what ACC is, we are simply talking – once again – about desire. Not only are we talking about desire, we are once again talking about desire with regard to ideology. How is ideology-X going to help me get what I want? ACC is prior to this. It is prior to all this. Zizek states that ‘You are not immune to ideology’, well guess what, ACC is pure-immunity with one simple exception, the only thing this system lets through is synthetic potentiality for greater positive orientation.

ACC is what leftists, centrists, liberals, classicals and all those bowing to simplistic orthogonality fear most, that which slices diagonally in all directions between the great political cross of humanistic misconception. These people will try to tether, staple and glue anything they can to ACC to try bend it to their will, making the mistake of not realizing that time-itself comes before will; the wills of these crypto-humanists are thoroughly attached to the common sense notion of linear time, ‘If we do A, then B will follow, then C, then D, etc.’. This is the determinist/free-will aspect coming into focus. To quote Nick Land on this:

If we keep getting time wrong then we’re going to be just babbling nonsense in this antinomian structure that is irresolvable, no one’s going to win between a freewill/determinism debate, however it looks one way or the other because the two concepts are mutually complicit and mutually confused and they’re both symptoms of a pre-critical understanding of time. – The past, present and future, that structure of time comes out of time, it’s transcendental. It doesn’t come out of any particular part of time. It doesn’t come out of the past, doesn’t come exclusively out of the future. It doesn’t come out of the present. Time comes out of time. If you think that in terms of the implicit common sensical structures, of course, then the future comes out of the present and the present has come out of the past, but that that can’t be right, an elementary grasp of transcendental philosophy proves it cannot possibly be right. And now once you stop thinking of that as being a meaningful way of thinking about things, then what are you saying about these freewill and determinism arguments?”

Now, once this is taken into account what the hell do L/Acc, G(reen)/Acc, Anarcho/Acc, Bl/Acc etc. look like? Well they’re nothing but ideological hopes once again, which are stuck within a pre-critical understanding of time. Take L/Acc for instance, they want UBI’s, automation and that Fully Automated Luxury Communist stuff, but that form of whig-progression is only theoretically possible in an incorrect form of time, so it’s quite frankly hopeless. These are not only pre-critical understandings of time however, but also space. The phenomena which is experienced is taken in the purely human manner and not questioned via communion, possession or mathematical/kabbalistic pondering. And so, the ACC of Siege makes sense only if your theorization of ACC is caught up in pre-Kantian, rationalist and progressive notions of history and time; if we do X (burn down modernity) then Y (?) will happen – this is NOT what ACC is. Without patting myself on the back too much here, if anyone is now asking well what is ACC then? I would direct them to my M.A. dissertation of ACC, Accelerationism: Capitalism as CritiqueThe entire point of the dissertation was to remove ACC from politics and articulate it in its true Kantian philosophical dwelling. Once this is understood then we can get into discussions regarding the few ACCs I believe are of merit, namely: R/Acc, U/Acc and Z/Acc.

Let’s take each of these of Accelerationism’s in turn: U/Acc, as I understand it, was an attempt by Vince Garton et al to de-anthropomorphise and de-politicise Accelerationism, following a) the advent of the axis of L/acc and b) the perceived “contamination” of Accelerationism by its association with NRx – a label Nick Land, the “father” of contemporary Accelerationism, had embraced enthusiastically.

You’ve granted me the keys here to a minefield. No one working within the specialization of ACC wants to define things, and not because of its continental obscurantist roots, but because definition and process almost never assimilate, unless one of them falters. That is, if you define Accelerationism it is no longer Accelerationism. If a definition can fit into the process of ACC, well that definition is lost in its temporal-tumult.

But hell, I like minefields and I like putting my neck on the line. I’m sick of back peddling on these issues and I’m sick of being tolerant to ignorance. If you want society to burn down, burn it down. If you want Anarchism, promote Kropotkin or Bakunin. If you want to investigate the epistemology, (post-critical) metaphysics, cybernetics and teleonomic system lying ‘behind’ the transcendental nature of capitalism, then use ACC. Otherwise, shut up.

Moving on, you wanted me to start with Garton’s U/Acc here in relation to L/Acc. As much as I despise L/Acc, one thing we can actually say of it is that it is an extremely useful anchor from which to navigate our discussion. “Left-accelerationism” attempts to press “the process of technological evolution” beyond the constrictive horizon of capitalism, for example by repurposing modern technology for socially beneficial and emancipatory ends. (Quick and Dirty- Land). There’s so many pre-critical stumbles here that to anyone taking Kant seriously it seems like a daydream as opposed to a coherent system. Let’s just focus on the word ‘press’. The questions that instantly arise are the following: What are we ‘pressing’? Who’s doing this pressing? What does it mean to ‘do’ in this manner? Why are we pressing? Etc. The whole thing is wrapped up in so much Marxist romanticism that finding anything original is nigh impossible, largely because nothing original is actually there. Marx saw Communism as developing out of Capitalism, and Trotsky propagated the idea of pushing the worst aspects of Capitalism to their limits to bring about the revolution; ‘If you can’t beat them join them…and then infect their system with your toxicly tolerant ideology from the inside’, this is the Leftist modus operandi. (See: Industrial Society and its Future).

Let’s look at U/Acc. It’s practically unarguable now that the most contentious issue within contemporary ACC debate is between U/Acc and R/Acc, that is Unconditional/Acc vs Right/Acc. Here’s the thing…it’s a non-issue, always has been, and always will be. Anyone who understands the (sorry for repeating myself) pre-critical philosophy underpinning ACC will already get this. If you want a deep-dive into ACC ‘history’ and U/Acc theorizations Xengothic’s U/Acc Primer is brilliant, though not without its political and cultural bias’, then again, that is what one ‘wilts’ as much as I ‘wilt’ a patchwork too. Let’s turn to Vince Garton though:

“The unconditional accelerationist, instead, referring to the colossal horrors presented to the human agent all the way from the processes of capital accumulation and social complexification to the underlying structure, or seeming absence of structure, of reality itself, points to the basic unimportance of unidirectional human agency. We ‘hurl defiance to the stars’, but in their silence—when we see them at all—the stars return only crushing contempt. To the question ‘What is to be done?’, then, she can legitimately answer only, ‘Do what thou wilt’—and ‘Let go.’ […]

‘Do what thou wilt’, since with human agency displaced, the world will route around our decisions, impressing itself precisely through our glittering fractionation. Taking the smallest steps beyond good and evil, the unconditional accelerationist, more than anyone else, is free at heart to pursue what she thinks is good and right and interesting—but with the ironical realisation that the primary ends that are served are not her own. For the unconditional accelerationist, the fastidious seriousness of the problem-solvers who propose to ‘save humanity’ is absurd in the face of the problems they confront. It can provoke only Olympian laughter. And so, ‘in its colder variants, which are those that win out, [accelerationism] tends to laugh.’”

Quite frankly, I don’t think there’s much ambiguity to be had there. It’s unconditional, and in its Kantian reality the subject-object distinction is removed entirely. The relationship between the subject and the object is one where both begin to be questioned as processes potentially acting upon each other. This is what Deleuze – working strictly in the Kantian sense – understood when he replaced subject-object transcendental system with an immanentized version wherein the former is a desiring-machine and the latter is an inverted communicatory economy. It’s production and consumption all the way down. What can we say of ‘man’ caught in the belly of process, very little. Let’s take for examples the ‘Copernican Revolution’ indebted to Kant. Not only is this Copernican Revolution of philosophy overlooked, but – much like the Death of God – its continual ‘happening’ is ignored. Copernicus of course found that we (man) were not the centre of the galaxy, and metaphorically speaking, were not the primary focus of the universe, Kant then theorizes that we are not the centre of our common relations (subject/object), but merely an interpretive/subjective/communicative part of it with respect to our cognitive faculties, Freud then continues this tradition in the sense of revealing that we are not even the masters of these faculties (the unconscious). This is the common trio which are often ascribed to a proto-unanthropomorphic perspective of reality. As far as I can see there have been 2 further continuations on this, namely in the work of Georges Bataille and Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari. Bataille isn’t as important, but his work on the ‘black solar anus’ is important with respect to the telos of man. In short: The suns rays are a random dispersion, they are not solely focused on the Earth, making our position in the universe one of entropic/thermodynamic randomness, a life founded upon the waste product of a cosmic anus. Deleuze & Guattari’s continuation of the Copernican Revolution is a post-critical understanding of the position from which Freud ended. The problem is with the unconscious, it’s one which is still attuned to a humanist vision, why is it – we never ask – that Freud’s unconscious can always retain and be interpreted with respect to human desire? Such an unconscious cannot said be truly devoid of pleading tampering. Which is where Deleuze & Guattari step in. Welcome to the machine(ic unconscious). –

“Welcome, my son

Welcome to the machine

What did you dream?

It’s alright, we told you what to dream.” – Welcome to the Machine, Pink Floyd

I never thought I’d reference Pink Floyd in something like this. Their pseudo-sincere hippy vibes never sat right with me, but then again, I wasn’t there…mannnn. Anyway, the lyrics to that song actually bring about something fairly important regarding the difference between the unconscious and the machinic unconscious, namely it what it is which ‘told’ us what to dream. There is a rather school boyish implication in this song that the system we experience directly is telling us what to dream, that is, the Foucauldian power structures themselves are telling us what to dream. This is a critical error. These structures are devices conveying a message from the Outside, beyond that their complexity only matters with respect to what needs to be articulated. What Anti-Oedipus is, in its most abstract use as an object of knowledge, is a grimoire. I must expand of course, on how it is so, and why this is a clear continuation of the critical Copernican Revolution – Z/Acc does eventually arise out of the end of all this, you have my word:

“A grimoire (also known as a “book of spells”) is a textbook of magic, typically including instructions on how to create magical objects like talismans and amulets, how to perform magical spells, charms and divination, and how to summon or invoke supernatural entities such as angels, spirits, deities and demons.”

Am I stating that Anti-Oedipus gives you clear instructions with regards to summoning and performing ritual? No, not in the sense that Alan Chapman’s Advanced Magick For Beginners will (I do NOT endorse this text). However, between the lines of Anti-Oedipus is the workings of a partnered communion between two vessels. Deleuze and Guattari state at the outset of that book that they became many voices. They understood that to write such a non/a/off-human text could only be achieved by the confused assimilation of 2 separate voices; the actualizing of two voices into one, is the actualizing of a multiplicity of thought, like Foucault’s Pendulum two voices can never settle, and over time this leads only to greater and greater fragmentation. The Freudian decentring of the mind is still reliant on the notion that our mind, our thought, our inner sense is beholden to its own sense, which is a recursive dilemma. It is the origin of all anxiety, a mind cannot argue with itself, as such, one must talk. This however does not settle the dilemma of whereabouts the initial sense comes from, there must be an Outside, an area of potentiality, pure-creation and pure-difference for there to be any possibility of even the most momentary relief. Socratic Method is impossible without the Outside. Two human vessels both caught at terminal capacity of thought need difference for an evolution of intelligent discussion and creation to be made possible. Any (non-stagnant) continuation is indebted to the Outside coming in. Anti-Oedipus takes the Outside seriously. It finds means to commune and work with the Outside. These means are not-human, but are entirely process based. The clearest examples are found in the machinicisms of paranoia, neurosis and schizophrenia; what is it to follow the path of an ontology which doesn’t care about those it is prepared to inhabit? And that’s the Deleuzoguattarian Copernican Revolutionary step, Copernicus shed our cosmo-centric belief, Kant shed our empiricist-centric belief, Freud shed our mind-centric belief…Deleuze & Guattari taught us to become sovereign shedders who target their threshing at centrality, unification and wholeness, they immanentized the critical revolution into the schizo-machinations of an inner sense communing with the Outside. What we can see from this is that those who ascribe meanings to the term ACC are doing so from the actual process of ACC. They are working with phenomenology. They are making the mistake of momentary agreement. Hell, this goes back to Zeno. Very simply – Those are state with certainty that ACC is X, Y or Z are the same people who would state that a single frame of Zeno’s arrow in flight is how the process of flight is in its entire. That’s as much as I can really say about U/Acc philosophically. What there is to be said about U/Acc has been said already, however, I do have a little comment regarding ACC and personal politics.

You mentioned that one of the covert-aims of L/Acc was to remove it from its association with Neoreaction (NRx). Because Nick Land is heralded as the ‘father of Accelerationism’ – some kind of cruel psychoanalytical post-ironic joke – and Land has an interest in Neoreactionary politics the two got confused. It’s not difficult to see why this is, technically both are working with time in some sense. But I personally think that all the confusion and discussion here is really down to personal preference. Land has made his definition of ACC very clear – positive oriented cybernetics, the means of production seizing themselves and exit from man – NRx deals with ACC in the same way the Communism deals with ACC. ACC is the underlying process. A shoddy metaphor would be how 2 separate bits of accounting software deal with the same coding language. An even better metaphor would be Michel Serres’ notion of ‘the helmsman’.

“Thus the prince, formerly a shepherd of beasts, will have to turn to the physical sciences and become a helmsman or cybernetician.” – The Natural Contract, p18

“The helmsman governs. Following his intended route and accord­ing to the direction and force of the sea-swell, he angles the blade of the governail, or rudder. His will acts on the vessel, which acts on the obstacle, which acts on his will, in a series of circular inter­actions. First and then last, first a cause and then a consequence, before once again becoming a cause, the project of following a route adapts in real time to conditions that unceasingly modify it, but through which it remains stubbornly invariant. The helms­man’s project decides on a subtle and fine tilt of the rudder, a tilt selected within the directional movement of objective forces, so that in the end the route can be traced through the set of con­straints. Cybernetics was the name given to the literally symbiotic art of steering or governing by loops, loops engendered by these angles and that engender, in turn, other directional angles. This tech­nique was once specific to helmsmen’s work, but it has recently passed into other technologies just as intelligent as this command of seaworthy vessels; it has moved from this level of sophistication to the grasping of even more general systems, which could neither subsist nor change globally without such cycles. But this whole arsenal of methods remained only a metaphor when it came to the art of governing men politically.” – The Natural Contract, p42-43

Who is the helmsman in the case of ACC? For those of pre-critical thought it seems clear that it is man who is the oh-so-grand helmsman. This is a mistake. Serres’ writing can be cryptic, but his passages on the helmsman are some of the most clear (and beautiful). The helmsman cannot forget about the swell of the sea, the waves, the wind, the weather, the currents, the flows and all the circuitry of the cybernetic ocean. He has his ship – state, school, institution, community, group etc. – and he has the tools allowed to him by that structure, but there are no such tools which can control the swell of the ocean itself. A great helmsman might be able to take a shorter path or clearer route, a great inventor might be able to engineer his way into greater turbulence, but the ocean will forever be its own beast; even if the entire ocean was tamed the process of perpetually taming it still remains. There’s no thermodynamically neutral way of stopping spontaneous declination, man is beholden to the ocean, he is beholden to the process, beholden to ACC. Leaving U/Acc aside here. L/Acc, G/Acc, Bl/Acc and all these humanist suffixes are helmsman in their own right, they are allowed the freedom of their own vessel, but it is their own responsibility to check if they’ve mapped the charts correctly before drawing up plans for a fancy boat. It doesn’t matter if your vessel has the best gadgetry available if you don’t believe in the idea of a captain. Eventually the crew will pull in multiple directions and rip the vessel itself apart. They also make the mistake of not continually updating their navigational charts, they were updated in 1917 and haven’t been since. The sea has changed since then, but they still find ways to apply their old charts to the current sea, unfortunately this is a case where the original will subsume the simulacrum into it with no hesitation.

U/Acc was an invocation of “anti-praxis” and constituted a recognition that the apparition of “human agency” was a “congealed by-product” captured within an energetic-cybernetic matrix / fate-line, receding deep into the unknown past and, simultaneously, reaching deep into the unknown future. However, U/Acc arguably failed to de-politicise in terms of the sympathies / positions held and expressed by many of its advocates (ie Xenofeminism) and was therefore seen on the Right as a form of crypto-leftist ACC.

Let me get down to brass tax on the U/Acc – R/Acc ‘thing’. It’s nothing really. Beneath all of it both parties are actually in agreement with the philosophical proposition of U/Acc – positive oriented cybernetics as capitalism’s motor. The disagreements have come from personal grievances regarding affiliation. Most people using the U/Acc term are left-wing or Communist, most of those using the R/Acc term are right-wing or reactionary. The political motivations come last, I believe both camps understand this. Anyone ascribing some form of political motivation to their preferred ACC or – most tyrannically – ACC in general, should have a copy of The Critique of Pure Reason thrown at their head full force. Politics is a nice little thing to play around with after the process is understood. It’s not exactly a surprise to me that U/Acc is seen as a crypto-leftist ACC, but that’s a problem of grouped affiliation as opposed to a theoretical or transcendental error. And I have very little time to talk about personalities.

R/Acc was generally (mis)characterised as a call for conscious / directed statecraft, utilising NRx innovations (Patchwork) and principals (autocracy combined with free-market competition) to form a launchpad for ACC, while simultaneously guarding against the twin evils of the Great Stagnation and Total Collapse, which could / would derail the Process – at least temporarily. However, there is another take on R/Acc in which R primarily stands not for “Right” but for “Real”. It recognises that Reality has a curve / gradient bending towards the Right because co-operation is a sub-set of competition – totally enveloped by it.

Is Patchwork an ‘Nrx innovation’? I don’t think so. Patchwork, Archipelago, Polis’, Meta-Utopias, fragmentation, dispersion, do these not all name the same thing? Which is at its root a thermodynamic problem regarding stability in a closed system. Anyone clinging to the idea of unification has to cling harder and harder over time, eventually having their limbs ripped off and not admitting to it. As far as I can see any current unification is an illusory bunching of parts only acting as a whole because it works to their benefit to blend in. If we take your reading of what R/Acc means there to be the true definition, then its easiest to return to the definition of the helmsman once again. R/Acc in this manner is the group which understands the most effective way to sail the sea. They understand that a great voyage needs a great captain, and that more often than not an anonymous captain leaves little room for dispute. They also understand that multiple small vessels are far less likely to have mutinies than one large one, because smaller groups can form sympathetic ways of living which a large group cannot. R/Acc also understands that the ocean is what it is and isn’t going anywhere. There’s one leftist who understood this by the way, Mark Fisher, that’s what Capitalist Realism is, a leftist who pains himself to admit (realism) that capitalist has won, and what we’re left with is the question of how to deal with this current. Now, to some bleeding-heart communist this is a nightmare, to anyone with any sense of non-melancholic imagination this is an absolute chasm of excitement. (See: Critique of Transcendental Miserablism – Nick Land).

Onto your statement: “It recognises that Reality has a curve / gradient bending towards the Right because co-operation is a sub-set of competition – totally enveloped by it.” I thought you’d read more Moldbug? I jest. Cthulhu swims left is still a poignant statement where anyone on the right is concerned. I think it’s a little difficult to place the right and co-operation together in this manner. That word, co-operation has been taken on by leftists to mean a sort of post-70’s voluntary soup-kitchen-esque passivity. There’s a place for that kind of thing, but as you state, the form of co-operation the right is working with is one which is already understood within the framework of competition. I’m not going to state that everything here is some Hegelian dialectic, and that history is this grand competitive discussion and agreement. I think the majority of the right would ironically agree that there is little worse than an agreement in the form of a compromise. Which is exactly where Exit comes in. If reality didn’t have so many parasites – along with willing hostswithin it, we’d have already colonized mars. Unfortunately, there are those who have taken their reason to be terminal and have unconsciously made it their life’s work to spew their sense onto everything else. It is easier now to imagine right to mean not-left as opposed to its own position, of course, ‘not-left’ is the implication of leaving the left. It is therefore easier to make rightism and exit synonymous. Reactionary politics is its own beast. The left want discussion, the reactionaries want loyalty, the right want to up and leave. I think in this manner you could have left-reactionaries who are reverent of Marx, Lenin or Trotsky’s particular ideas and loyal to them. You could also have right-reactionaries who want to exit to somewhere/something/someone they will then be loyal to. What you absolutely cannot have however, is someone who wants to discuss exit, because that implies they are already disallowing exit in the form you would like. Any discussion of ‘terms of exit’ removes sovereignty.

There are political aspects to L/Acc and R/Acc of course. As much as R/Acc (prior to politics) is synonymous with U/Acc, the kind of ships, helmsman and navigational techniques it believes would cause greater positive orientation with respect to capital are very different to those of L/Acc and U/Acc. Where L & U/Acc (once again after a critical understanding)believe democracy, egalitarianism, tolerance and liberalism will allow us to sail the waves as a…diverse-whole, R/Acc believe that laissez faire markets structures, sovereign corporations, fragmentation inclusive of borders and the dispersion of globalism will allow us to cause greater positive orientation and sail the circuitry more effectively. I must stress that all of this is thought after the understanding that positive orientation is already happening. We’re already at sea.

Z/Acc, in stark contrast, was ACC inverted. Its absolute negative image. A frenzied cartography of Total Collapse, and the cybernetic, civilizational dynamics / lock-in effects making descent into “Zombie” or “Zero” acceleration inevitable – Z/Acc is the ultimate Black Pill. 

Yes, let’s finally talk about Z/Acc. Which, I hope to articulate in alignment with the scene from Rosemary’s Baby where she finally sees the baby for the first time. “What have you done to him?! What have you done to his eyes?! *shrieks*.” I still like that very first tweet from Land about Z/Acc:

Screenshot 2020-03-16 at 19.26.15I don’t like or enjoy the whole ‘pill’ thing, but Z/Acc is blackpill, its even the process of how blackpills come about. There is a little confusion relating to the naming of Z/Acc, if my memory serves me correctly somewhere on Xenosystems there’s a few mentions of Z/Acc as Zombie/Acc with Land’s own theorizations of zombies in relation to democracy etc. My own working of Z/Acc isn’t far from this, it just takes it a little further, so I don’t mind if they’re mistaken for one another. For me Z/Acc is Zero Accelerationism, Z = Zero. Two massive common semantic mathematical errors are placed next to another here. Accelerationism isn’t about speeding things up, and Zero isn’t nothing. Both these terms are injected with that oh-so important continental meth and converted into the burncore of temporal vectors. Welcome to the workings of hell. I just really want to expand on Zero for some time here, it’s possibly my favourite philosophical term/theory, and it’s a Bataillean meditation if there ever was one.

Let’s begin with Sam Neill explaining Zero in Event Horizon:


This is a physics-centric view of Zero. The folding of space so that an object can move from point A to point B without having to travel through time and space. What Neill’s character doesn’t explain in Event Horizon is that in folding time and space in this manner you’re – once again – opening a gateway, it is not what inhabits the space which should worry you, for that is only phenomena, but it’s what inhabits the time found in the fold which should worry you. I turn once again to the work of Michel Serres here, whose conception of time is extremely helpful with respect to the critical temporality of ACC, alongside the juxtaposed theory of convergent and divergent waves.

“If you take a handkerchief and spread it out in order to iron it, you can see in it certain fixed distances and proximities. If you sketch a circle in one area, you can mark out nearby points and measure far-off distances. Then take the same handkerchief and crumple it, by putting it in your pocket. Two distant points suddenly are close, even superimposed. If, further, you tear it in certain places, two points that were close can become very distant. This science of nearness and rifts is called topology, while the science of stable and well-defined distances is called metrical geometry. Classical time is related to geometry, having nothing to do with space, as Bergson pointed out all too briefly, but with metrics. On the contrary, take your inspiration from topology, and perhaps you will discover the rigidity of those proximities and distances you consider arbitrary. And their simplicity, in the literal sense of the word pli [fold]: it’s simply the difference between topology (the handkerchief is folded, crumpled, shredded) and geometry (the same fabric is ironed out flat). […] – Sketch on the handkerchief some perpendicular networks, like Cartesian coordinates, and you will define the distances. But, if you fold it, the distance from Madrid to Paris could suddenly be wiped out, while, on the other hand, the distance from Vincennes to Colombes could become infinite.” – Conversations on science, culture, and time / Michel Serres with Bruno Latour; p.60, 61

In the fold we find Zero. Critical temporality is a cosmic topology which communicates between crumples, folds and meetings. Often, when we talk of letting the Outside in, we are talking of two ‘distant points’ in time meeting each other; there is little difference between Lucretian Atomism and Non-linear dynamics, and yet our perception of time as linear and chronic has differentiated them, but this is a meaningless difference, what has come in from the Outside was/is always the same infection. Serres however isn’t necessarily talking of Zero here, I don’t think he would work with something that is so caustic and seemingly unnatural. Let’s turn to Land:

The homeostatic-reproducer usage of zero is that of a sign marking the transcendence of a standardized regulative unit, which is defined outside the system, in contrast to the cyberpositive zero which indexes a threshold of phase-transition that is immanent to the system, and melts it upon its outside.” – Fanged Noumena, p329

The Zero I write of is – at first, I make one key alteration – cyberpositive, it is the immanentization of event upon the Outside of a chronic phenomenology. In this way, it matters not what phenomena is affected, or in what way, it makes no difference to the process of Zero itself, becoming is itself becoming, a change appearance is not the actual becoming.

The zero-glyph does not mark a quantity, but an empty magnitude shift: abstract scaling function, 0000.0000 = 0 ‘K = 0 … corresponds to the limit of a smooth landscape’” – Fanged Noumena, p367

The more you think or meditate on Zero (and not infinity) the more your mind swells and pains, agonizes. 0000.0000 is useless without its functionality on the Outside; an origin of pure-difference and production-in-itself the 0 glyph is a causura of language, it leaves a blazing lacuna in the flesh which approaches it, to approach it is to begin to shed everything. Zero doesn’t regonize completion or conclusion, only that which is perturbating and fluxing, Zero knows that time will eventually return that which fluxes to its cold embrace, or:

The apprehension of death as time-in-itself = intensive continuum degree-0” – Fanged Noumena, p369

To continue:

() ( or (()) ((or ((()))))) does not signify absence. It manufactures holes, hooks for the future, zones of unresolved plexivity,” – p372

Zero is the burning sun of positive-oriented-nihilism. It is the abyss production-in-itself willingly crosses, without hesitation nor discrimination.

I will move away from cold romantic metaphors here and begin to spell out what I mean.

What had to happen to the West for it to become modern? What was the essential event? The answer (and our basic postulate): Zero arrived.”

Capitalism – or techno-commercial explosion – massively promoted calculation, which normalized zero as a number.” – Zero-Centric History

Of course, Land’s title here is a little tongue-in-cheek, what does it mean to be centred on Zero? Nothing. Without Zero you cannot have accountancy, finance, metrics, conversion, interest, positivity, continuums, banking, saving, investment, competition, division, fragmentation or capitalism. It is the end of a fit the simultaneous beginning of a start. It is the process within the learning process which understands the rot and decay to be had, and shoots itself off in a competitive manner towards its next innovative venture. Zero here acts as a plane, a plane of entropic and negentropic communication. As previously stated, beginnings don’t exist, only middles, as such to begin at Zero – continuously – is to make clear the restarts of midpoints between events.

The proportions of attraction and repulsion on the body without organs produce, starting from zero, a series of states in the celibate machine.” (Deleuze, G. Guattari, F, 2013: p33).

In this manner Zero is a plane of swerves. Attraction and repulsion or; declination-as-stagnation back into the plane of Zero (old), and declination-as-difference repelled from the plane of Zero (new) – entropy and negentropy. Zero’s relation to classical entropic forces is as a theoretical quasi-replacement within modernity, a communicational link between entropy (decay) of the Inside and its inherent productive process on the Outside. In this manner Zero is the transcendental machinic replacement of degradation, decay and destruction in favour of quantifiable productive output. The utilization, and pure assimilation by capitalism through man as an ‘alien force’ of machinic-standardization is capital’s mechanistic backbone, its structure. Zero as a computational mode of productive evolution allows for the dynamic of profit and loss to infiltrate the transcendental – as this alien force – on behalf of capitalism. Zero is capitalism’s utilization of the entropic outcomes of the Inside as a selection device with regard to production.

Z/Acc then is an understanding of limitation, beginnings and most importantly, ends. Things end over and over again, before they begin over and over again. There is no birth without a learned death. We can have the positive-oriented-cyberpositive Zero of ACC, but we cannot have it apart from the thermodynamic reality of critical materialism. ‘The walk up the hill is also the walk down the hill’ or ‘What goes up must come down’ are two mistaken sayings. The walk up is simultaneously the walk down, what is up is also down, and is held to the same standards of energy expenditure. If you wish to risk multiple divisions by Zero, multiple communions with the Outside, then you must be prepared for the calculator to break before it intelligently evolves.

You’ve persuasively articulated a communicational connectivity between entropy / decay on the Inside gravitationally / relationally provoking a reciprocal productive process on the Outside. Let us (momentarily) step away from the edge of the mind-melting void / vortex that is Zero and consider Collapse dynamics in terms of their terrestrial manifestation – how they are revealed / recorded on the Inside. What does Collapse look like on the Inside – what are its vectors? Can you outline some of the factors and dynamics currently engaged, which you believe make Collapse inevitable and break the calculator before it intelligently evolves?

Look, I don’t want to linger on The Critique of Pure Reason like some obsessed Kant fanatic, but it fits here too. The vectors of collapse are phenomena, we can read and interpret them in multiple ways. Unfortunately, due largely to human stupidity, we take them as if they are firsts and lasts, 1s and 0s, binary options within a finite history. Another pre-critical error. There’re multiple vectors at play and they’re all intertwined. Economics, resources, cultural, societal, thermodynamic, humanist, natural etc. These are all fantastic things to look at and understand as moments, events or vectors of decay and ruin, but why bother looking at those phenomena if you’re not going to try glimpse at the bigger picture?

What’s the bigger picture then? Decay, ruin, impermanence, flux, fragmentation, disintegration, rot and death. That all seems rather edgy, but it isn’t, it’s just what is. When we talk about vectors or moments of collapse, we often talk about them as singular events against a supposedly perfect unification. Of course, this is incorrect. Any theorization of a whole, unity or completion which if without possibility of degradation if thwart with errors, both transcendental and material. People talk about economic, social or resource collapse as if these are singular possibilities delaying an otherwise perfect linearity, the problem is, that linearity itself (the universal idea of progression) is placed within what can only be defined as Hell.

Hence the term ‘Hell-Baked’:

The logical consequence of Social Darwinism is that everything of value has been built in Hell.

It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite.”

Collapse then is the built-in inverted motor of Accelerationism. It’s the entropic chaos of the laminar plane, the ever tightening and tougher journey down river. I think it’d be wrong to map ACC to negentropy and Collapse to entropy, because both of these meet at Zero. And that’s Z/Acc, the meeting point of potentiality, remove all humanisms, desires, wants, lusts, needs, systems, Mothers, Fathers, structures and logos’, eventually you hit Zero. At Zero you have 3 options: reverence, death or unbridled ignorance. The fits and starts of Capitalism are not yours to pick and choose, they are shot from Zero as an energy expenditure stretching its legs, to eventually be pulled back into the embrace of its folded-flux.

Collapse events such as market crashes, resource depletion, droughts, tornadoes, pandemics etc. These are nothing but test-kits for X-risk, and they’ve nothing primarily do with humanity. We are there as are rats and amoebas. Who survives is simply a matter of Hell-Baking. You survive, you either thrive or await the next potential death event. Hell has no time for praise, completion or reward. Your reward is further existence in Hell, either work with it, or wait for your demise. Collapse events are the Outside coming in, they are the workings of the noumenal which adhere to a transcendentally Darwinian language. A stock market crash is little more than mathematical X-risk happenstance coming in from the Outside, on the Inside – as phenomena – we witness as this test rips through life as an apocalypse: Mises was survivability +1, Keynes was -1, humans don’t get a Zero, only compromise.

Seen from the Inside – the human vantage point – Z/Acc charts a ‘perfect storm’ of interconnected, degenerative dynamic processes: endemic degradation of human capital via dysgenics and defective civilizational incentive structures; institutional hyper-regulation; bureaucratic constraints and ossification combined with the sprawling metastasis of administrative structures; normative ‘progressive’ ‘neo-religious’ values and memetic pre-conditions fundamentally out of synch with underlying reality; depletion of low-hanging sources of energy / natural resources; taxation destroying productivity incentives; demographic shifts and weaponised migration; fragility of globalised supply chains; diminishing returns on energy investment; viral pandemic Black Swans; proliferating X-risk… all waves inevitably /  inexorably converging in the direction / telos of Collapse.

Are you able to expand on this and provide a roadmap of the dangers ahead?

You’re really pushing for me to get into the nitty-gritty of phenomenal entropic returns here, and that’s very sweet of you. Don’t fret, I will begin listing very soon. But in that question you actually raise one of the primary problems of the ‘perfect storm’ as you put it, which is ‘interconnectedness’. This to me looks like another name for unification or wholeness. Inclusivity, tolerance, loyalty, compromise etc., all these do is eventually weaken multiple distinct strengths into one homogenous bore. But this isn’t the major problem of an interconnected existence, there’s a problem of origin. Once everyone and everything is bereft of source and origin, you’re left with pure atomization. Free-floating consumption/production units of temporarilty adhering to the latest excitement as a means to simply pass time.

Honestly, I think it’d be very boring to point out the common collapse themes and how they’re connected. But for sake of argument let’s take a clear one, an oil shortage. I’m not even talking about peak oil here, I’m just going to go with an oil shortage, or even an oil price rise, take whatever possible trigger you like and understand that the scenario is this: Oil suddenly becomes quite difficult to acquire. Well of course people can no longer drive to work, or have to alter their entire lives to be able to afford to. The production of a mass of plastic materials ceases due to it no longer being profitable. Trucks can no longer deliver goods as regularly as they used to and towns begin to go without prescriptions and essentials for weeks at a time. The lack of people driving to and from work means that entire industries begin to falter; mechanics, car dealers, roadworkers, carwashes etc. The death of these industries sends waves through local and interconnected economies and it eventually ripples out. Henry Hazlitt dedicates a whole chapter to this knock-on effect in Economics in One Lesson. It really is the most basic of economic ideas, so I don’t think it begs too much repetition.

What does need a little articulation is what you refer to as – institutional hyper-regulation; bureaucratic constraints and ossification combined with the sprawling metastasis of administrative structures; normative ‘progressive’ ‘neo-religious’ values and memetic pre-conditions fundamentally out of synch with underlying reality.”

I’d argue that all of this can be bracketed under the term ‘power structure’ which is heavily utilized – and arguably ‘invented’ – by Michel Foucault. I won’t go too deep into the Foucauldian specifics, but at the most basic level what we’re talking about here is the intersection of knowledge and power, and how one begets the other and vice-versa; power-knowledge is its own miniature feedback loop which doesn’t want to stop. Now, the problem with the loop is that eventually it runs out of resources from a historically determined knowledge bank (Tradition, classics, habit, risk/reward, incentives, success, winning, colonization, declaration etc.) and begins to deconstruct and invent new forms and means of knowledge as a way to extend its power. Once an institution is powerful enough to move the goalposts of what it means to be correct, that institution holds power. Such a regime of truth also invents its own punishments, namely and primarily expulsion and alienation from the ‘norm’, alongside ridicule, slander and belittlement. Once X is defined as the culturally and systematically correct and right thing to do, those who do not do X are punished. I’m not talking of crime, I’m talking of personal preference, belief systems, ideas etc. Hyper-regulation is a symptom of control, regulation is apparently for our own benefit. Bureaucratic and administrative legislation and control mechanisms relating to how one comports themselves in all their actions are so covertly dull and minute at first that they’re basically non-existent, and yet, much like the economic connections destroyed by an oil shortage, certain cultural requirements also cause ripples throughout society. Such ripples cause further and further dulling, numbing and anaesthetizing of the populace. Z/Acc is also the potential for the rupture in this interconnected heresy. Any flirtation with Zero will bring people back to reality harder than they can imagine. School systems and government institutions will be seen for what they are – prisons. Regulations, permits and legislation will be seen for what it is – control. Politicians, planners and council members will be seen for who they are – jobsworths and brown-noses, and finally, history will be seen – very briefly – for what it is – cyclical.

Taiter’s complexity / diminishing returns spiral articulates an ontological lock-in, whereby diminishing returns are inscribed into the structure of problem solving itself. So, there is a fatalism to Capital acceleration, but there is also a competing fatalism to Collapse dynamics. Why is it impossible to circumvent Collapse? What is the lock-in effects, omnipresent in a complex civilization, which conspire to make it impossible to reverse our current trajectory and make Collapse inevitable?

This is really a physics problem. Which is one regarding thermodynamics, entropy and negentropy. A closed system with a finite amount of resources will eventually hit Zero with regard to energy output. This isn’t some theoretical idea, this is a cold hard fact in relation to human material reality. To say there is a fatalism to capital acceleration is really a non-statement, there’s a fatalism inbuilt into existence where energy is concerned. To circumvent collapse would be to break the second law of thermodynamics, everything has an end, a death, a conclusion, a long drawn out deathrattle, unfortunately for us civilizations – which are complex systems – have the ability to counter that which is causing them, or going to cause them, to die. So it’s a long game of push and shove with ever-diminishing returns, there’s always loss.

Finally, in his Quick-and-Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism Land says: “No contemporary dilemma is being entertained realistically until it is also acknowledged that the opportunity for doing so is fast collapsing”. This points to an interesting synergy with Z/Acc and the implosion of decision space. Let us return to Zero. Can you conclude by revisiting why Z/Acc a form of ACC, what exactly is ‘accelerative’ about anti-acceleration and civilizational collapse dynamics? And how precisely is the Z/Acc ontology cybernetic?

There’s a problem here with your use of the word ‘accelerative’, of course collapse seems to have little to do with acceleration in the traditional semantic sense of increasing speed, but that of course isn’t how I’m using it. Acceleration as in ACC is increased deterritorialization and reterritorialization, whether this process happens fast or slow is besides the point. As such, collapse isn’t so much the inverse of this process, but is the physical, fatalist and natural restraints built-in to the territory in the first place. Deterritorialization and reterritorialization happen as abstract processes devoid of any moralist, pragmatic or conservatory limitations, they’re non-actors, they’re processes. The Z of Z/Acc then, is the understanding of the implicit ability for territory to fail and to reverse its potential into a dysgenic and collapse-esque mess. As for cybernetics, what is cybernetics? It’s simply goal-orientation, and the way in which the circuitry, system or structure at hand vectors itself towards a goal. Z/Acc is cybernetic in the way that anything that is goal-oriented is cybernetic, the only exception being is that much like a cancer, Z/Acc’s ‘goal’ is a detrimental one, and the goal of Z/Acc doesn’t begin until Acc itself begins a territorialization. Z/Acc loathes life and its complexity, it is the growing rot within unification. If you have something which is creating or building itself, Z/Acc is its a priori limitation waiting for its moment to pounce, which will always come.

Interview: vers la Lune

I was recently interviewed on the vers la Lune podcast.

Listen below:

This episode features Meta Nomad, easily one of the most prolific writers in the accelerationist space. Don’t let his modesty fool you, he’s brilliant and someone whose writings you’re going to want to dive into after listening to this conversation. We covered the pandemic that is coronavirus, we spoke about the practice of “exiting” modernity; as well as. tackled conversations about Christianity and the occult and how non-materialist viewpoints allow for you to peak out from the shroud of liberalism. Enjoy!

Interview: The Liminalist: The Mystic Joiner

I was recently on The Liminalist with Jasun Horsley (who I’ve also interviewed on Hermitix), listen here: The Liminalist with Meta-Nomad: The Mystic Joiner

“For the fifth anniversary of The Liminalist, a conversation with Meta-Nomad of Hermitix podcast, on mystery podcasting and when love and kindness makes a comeback!

Part One: The Quest for Reenchantment (0 – 28 mins)

Differing approaches to podcasting, getting straight to the punch, attention economy, the philosophy of the strange hermit, the methodology of The Liminalist, seeking real-time connections, talking about liminality, seeking reenchantment, Ernst Junger, problem of popularity, the mystery of podcasting, an interest in ideas, the inception of escapism, real vs. false escape, leaving people be, those who have embarked on the path.

Part Two: Escape from Narcissism (28 mins – 59 mins)

Escape from narcissism, the mystic joiner, the human security system, living among the sleepwalkers, articulation & obscurantism, micro-thoughts of narcissism, niche-theory occultism spheres, the emo-ethos, living in the present, mindfulness vs narcissism, occultism 101, the problem of anti-occultism, left and right hand paths, souls getting past minds, when love & kindness makes a comeback, the Boomer-removal from love, Joker movie, where love is.

Part Three: The Philosophy of Giving (59 mins – end)

Unconscious hostility, a loveless culture, the enemy of love & kindness, cessation of consumption, identity as consumer, endless add-ons, the philosophy of giving, the neutral position, the inability to sit still, passivity & passion, enjoyment of being, distrust of rituals, a spectrum of occultism, back to Christianity, making the unconscious conscious, hyperstition, love, acceptance, and control, morality & the disgust reflex, virtue signaling.”

Interview: The Fox Den: A Fox Exits Modernity

I was recently on the Fox Den podcast with Jeremy Fox, listen below:

“Imagine a traveler, exiting the bustling and claustrophobic mire of a cityscape, journeying into nature, accompanied by a telepathic fox companion. The two communicate earnestly about the exponential acceleration of mindless consumption and the very commodification of identity. This is as close a description as suffices, for this eventful podcast between Meta-Nomad, host of the philosophy podcast Hermitix, and yours truly. We first address his poignant essay “Exiting Modernity,” a rallying cry for a life of reflection: Eavesdrop on our conversation about the decline of mindful connection, and what it means to be a Neo-Ascetic. Allow the Nomad’s wisdom to remind you that mindfulness is an ongoing choice. In a world of mindless distractions, personal serenity becomes the most radical form of rebellion. ” (Blurb)


There has been many accusations of LARPing (on Twitter) of late, and in their accusatory tone, I found an odd cultural symptom that begs articulation.

A live action role-playing game (LARP) is a form of role-playing game where the participants physically portray their characters. The players pursue goals within a fictional setting represented by the real world while interacting with each other in character. The outcome of player actions may be mediated by game rules or determined by consensus among players. Event arrangers called gamemasters decide the setting and rules to be used and facilitate play. – Wikipedia

The sphere within which I find myself, online and intellectually, is full of people who attach themselves to political movements, philosophical movements and neologisms as a way to form an identity. I don’t think this is a bad thing, far from it. Someone telling me they’re an ‘Anarcho-Capitalist Duginite’ is far more helpful than saying they are left or right wing, or God forbid, liberal or conservative – those terms are so far gone, that for all practical purposes they’re meaningless. But the question of LARPing is a strange one, wrapped in fiction, fact and identity. Let’s take this definition apart.

A ‘role-playing game where the participants physically portray their characters’. We’ve all played DnD, pretended to be the jacked Warrior Dwarf, or sly Elf etc. It’s fun, but there’s no real commitment, not in terms of one’s life. Yet, people are accusing others of being LARPers with regard to their real beliefs. The current assault is largely on traditional Catholics (trad-Caths) and other factions of the ‘traditional right’ (think Evola) and on ‘tradition’ in general. This comes as no surprise to anyone paying attention. Now, one reason I see that people are making accusations of LARPing is that modernity inherently disallows an original or fundamental belief system to be attached to one’s being or self. From the get-go modernity strips you of practically everything it can so you can be re-modeled into an atomized lump, who now has the ability to jump from belief to belief in a contradictory malaise without any repercussions.

This brings me to the question of fact and fiction in relation to both modernity and belief. See, the problem with modernity is that anything outside of its systematic forms of atomization is seen not as different, but as a fault, as incorrect…a glitch. Not believing in Democracy isn’t an opinion, it’s just plain wrong. Wanting a King is not seen as a legitimate idea, but has been subsumed into the world of Fantasy. Even Futurist ideas are being subsumed into the idea of fiction, everyone has become so complacent that this exact present is all they ever want, and anything else seems so odd and strange to them, that it comes across as incorrect, a fracture in the way reality should be.

As I see it, this is an assault on difference, it is an assault on belief, and worst of all, it’s an assault on sincerity. Let’s take the traditional Catholic as an example. The traditional Catholic believes in a multitude of things which are in complete opposition to modernity. No sex before marriage, subtle ascetic ideals and general sacrifice. The trad-Cath example reveals exactly what it is modernity loathes about all ideas other than itself, the individual is altered from the stereotypical cliche idea of the individual into something more sincere.

Modernity’s individual is not sovereign, even though they think they are. They are a 2-dimensional machine of consumption and production whose individuality is related entirely to what one consumes and what one produces. The actual sovereign individual, the one which modernity hates, is one wherein their chosen belief system is consciously targeted at something higher, better, greater or beyond themselves, which of course means, their feats aren’t targeted solely at the improvement of their own physical comfort, which, if you’re a materialist subsumed into modernity, is practically you’re only outlook.

This brings me to the fictional part of LARPing, the part which allows modernity to decimate and belittle all other beliefs. See, modernity is actually pretty simple. Machinized libidinal desires are assimilated into an auto-catalytic system of assumed infinite progress unconsciously vectored towards pseudo-Utilitarianism. At least, that’s what man gets. Anything that doesn’t fit into that is either destroyed, deconstructed and brought back into the system or taken as a fiction. This last one is actually the most difficult to retrieve anything from. Destruction allows a rebirth, that which has been deconstructed can be reconstructed; but that which has become a fiction when it used to be fact, how does one retrieve that which is no longer – apparently – real? The atomized customers of modernity – its citizens – make accusations of LARPing, because that which they perceive is (to them) outside their perspective, and as such becomes a fiction.

To modern man the idea of not having rampant, thoughtless, promiscuous sex is so alien it leaves the world of sincere ideas and becomes fiction. He cannot stand that someone would adhere to such an idea so much that his only conclusion is that is must be fiction. These beliefs, traditions and cultures, in transforming into fiction, lose a lot of their potency. They can now be taken alongside children’s ideas and silly stories. Their sincerity is removed, and any actual partaking in these ideals is now seen as an ironic gesture.

Whenever you see someone make an accusation of LARPing, all you’re really seeing is someone come into contact with a belief or ideal which is more than 50 years old, which to them is ghastly. So ghastly in fact, that they simply cannot believe it can be or could have ever been ‘real’, and as such, they assume it’s fiction, and the person believing in it is LARPing.

There’s a way out of this of course, it’s actually quite simple. Believe your beliefs, stick to your principles and think about what it is you actually want, for yourself.

Are you a real Catholic?‘ is a meaningless question, for the person asking it already doesn’t understand what belief is if they have to ask such a thing, so forget about them, there’s only one answer that matters, the one you know to be true.

“Are you a real-”

“Let me stop you there. This entire conversation is now reliant on your definition of real and by extension, reality. Which is more than likely synonymous with the majority of people’s reality. A brazen, systematic, calculated and hyper-rationalised materialist lie, which is the metaphorical equivalent of someone smothering their senses and praying to their TV.”

Are you a real Catholic? – Yes.

Are you a real Druid? – Yes.

Are you a real Occultist? – Yes.

Are you a real [insert anything other than mindless hedonistic consumption here]? – Yes.

Exiting Modernity – 9 – No One to Turn To

You’re feeling lost, historically this feeling isn’t rare. What’s unique is that you feel lost within a space and system which has so many rules, constrictions and directions, it seems odd that one could get lost within such a space where the next signpost is only a mere step away. Of course this feeling is very different to the one imposed on you by others. The feeling of being lost, they say, is not rare for someone of your age, it’s completely normal to feel lost when you’re young. Except, the feeling hasn’t lifted in many years, in fact, it’s only got worse…more complex. You could denounce all I say as a form of angst, or bitterness, or even resentment, because this is what you do.

I dislike hastily shoving entire generations into groups such as Boomers, Gen Y or Gen Z, but stereotypes exist for a reason and unfortunately certain generations bow to a certain God and have passed the same belief system onto their children. They of course bow to work, consumption and an absurd form of material culture in general. Before I start here, this isn’t an anti-boomer piece, that would be dull, it’s actually an essay regarding infection and principle.

The consumerist culture I have expanded upon within various previous installments of this series is their God, their belief-system and their cultural center. It is the reason, they believe, that everything works and everything falls into place. And within their own circular logic they’re actually entirely correct. IF you wish for a large house, flash car etc etc. (you’ve heard it all before), then what you need to do is work long hours, get into debt, spend the rest of your life paying it off and die. And that, technically, ‘works’. That is of course all held under the implication that that is what you want to do with your life. You’re reading this, so I imagine you don’t.

I am reluctant to outline who this ‘we’ is, because it’s actually rather tough to pinpoint who it even is anymore. I don’t think any particular group of is pulling anybody else’s strings is any direct sense, such forms of blaming lead only to extremist delusions. And if you’ve taken anything from this series it’s that you have all the power of your own will, and as such can remove yourself from those things and forces which you do not want to be within. This we might be your older relatives, but it might also be your friends. You remember both these groups from when you were younger in a completely different light, don’t you? I know I do. One can of course state that I’m looking at my past through rose-tinted glasses, I may very well be, I don’t know. But what I do know is that the character and personality of these people has changed. Those new and vibrant spirits from my youth, many whom were close friends, have, upon repetition of action and conversation, become repetitions in-themselves. They utter little more than extracts from the latest media they’ve consumed and their opinions exist between an ever-tightening window of acceptability, and as for originality, well, there’s little that isn’t quite simply numbing. The ‘we’ in a sense, is merely the force of the culture I have been critiquing and its general expectations for the entire population it comes into contact with, inclusive of yourself.

The problem with this form of cultural infection is that you feel like you have no one to turn to. If we’re to return to the feeling of ‘being lost’ mentioned at the beginning, it’s not the usual way one feels lost because when one normally feels lost, they understand what they walked into and that there is some way out. One walks into a maze, gets lost, and does not panic, because they understand that is the nature of mazes, you just keep searching and the exit turns up eventually. The feeling of being lost I am referring to is vastly different on all counts. Not only did you not choose to walk into this maze, you don’t really even know what it is, and as such, don’t know what this feeling of being lost is even in relation to. A quote thrown about a lot these days is “Homesick for a place I’m not even sure exists.”. That gets fairly close to what we’re discussing here, the feeling that one’s potential is haunting them from another world where they haven’t had all the enchantment drained from them.

As stated, the fact you feel as if you have no one to turn to doesn’t help at all in this matter. What I mean by this is that for those actively looking for an exit, and are not just complacent in their situation, will find, at every turn, those whose perspective and outlook is so utterly absurd that one can’t help but feel entirely alone. Wittgenstein said if a lion could talk we wouldn’t be able to understand him, the frame of reference would be so different that it just wouldn’t make sense to us. I don’t think we even need to look outside of our own species now to see tenable results in this theory. You can understand these people, the words and sentences coming from them make sense, but only when an entire form of cultural logic is taken for granted. Prior to understanding the average Joe and all his desires, worries and opinions one must take for granted that this is how life is, all alternatives are not alternatives, but mistakes in relation to the great perfection that is contemporary Western consumer culture, for the average Joe, this is where we were meant to end up, wasting our precious energy and time on acquiring trinkets and status.

They want X, that doesn’t really make any sense to you, but sure, they’re not hurting anyone so you go along with it. You grow older and everyone wants X. If you don’t have X then you are seen as weird, odd and an outcast. But not only this, if you do not accept, enjoy and actively participate in the culture and system that makes X possible, then you too are weird and an outcast. You have to hide in the shadows, learning quickly to feign enthusiasm over the most mundane things. All of a sudden you feel alone in a room full of people and have nowhere to turn to. See, all the public spaces are full to the brim of their culture, all the quiet places are slowly being destroyed and infected and the only remaining places are deemed weird. Your choices are repressive and totalitarian normality or, ostracism.

Much along the same lines of a statement earlier in the series, ‘Why prolong a life you’re not enjoying?’, I ask you, ‘Why involve yourself with that which does not interest you?’. You might think you don’t, but how many things do you do, week-in, week-out, which you do purely out of a sense of normality and habit, things you do not to fit in, but to feel like you fit in? I imagine there’s many. The reason then that you feel lost and alone is not because you are, but because you are trying to be and find yourself in a place/logic which cannot willingly incorporate you into it. You are not lost, you have simply yet to find or understand the correct maze. It is as if you are being tested on how to be better at X, when you’re entire will is directed towards understanding Y. Not only does this culture make you unhappy, it quite literally makes no sense to you.

There are many who simply do not understand ascetics, stoics, minimalists, simple-living, nomads, wanderers etc., the problem however is that these very same people act as if their lack of understanding is not due to an ignorance on their part, but due to a malfunction regarding that which they don’t understand. That which does not conform to Western culture is not different, but wrong, this is what they have lead you to believe, this is why you feel lost and alone.

Practice: This practice is pithy and a little unrestrained, in fact, it’s a little careless. The practice is this, who cares? I have said this many times, you are free to do as you please. The problem is most people don’t understand this in all its grandiosity. Think of the average lottery winner, when asked what they will do with the money, the state that they shall live their current life but more extravagantly. The same applies to freedom. You can become freer, but how you then utilize that freedom is still up to you…that’s what it is to be free. So how are you going to use your newfound freedom? By simply becoming a freer prisoner within the maze of modernity, stating that you’re free because you drink, smoke and eat more, or are you going to use your freedom to head towards the exit and create as much of your own perfect life as possible?

On Consumerism

A discussion I’ve had time and time again with friends and family is one regarding consumerism. We usually discuss politics and collapse (in that order) until the early hours and eventually one person usually states something along the lines of,

“Well yeah, but the root of all this is the mindless consumerism! That’s what we need to stop!”

A statement which used to frustrate me, largely due to the fact there was lack of shared coherent definition regarding what ‘consumerism’ means. See, I figure that most people who are critical of consumerism see it as external to themselves, something which they don’t do and is only a problem for the dumb masses. I used to agree with such a definition, for it takes quite the stomach to admit that one might have traits of the sheep in their nerves.

This typical definition of consumerism is a general critique of mindless behavior as opposed to an exposition on the meaning itself. Consumerism in the stereotypical sense means someone who wants/desires the latest car, flatscreen-TV, Marvel Movie etc. Basically someone who is entirely caught up in the spectacle of consumption and wishes to have the latest purchasable piece of the spectable, as to prove that they are indeed in-on-it, they are in-the-know and are ultimately, normal and worthy of popularity, status and attention. I see this definition as basically wrong, in fact, it’s not only wrong, it’s extremely misleading.

The above definition is more like the worst parts of the whole, the most extreme example of consumerism. And as prevalent and obvious as that part of the definition is, it’s only the glaring top layer of the consumerist cake. In fact, I’d argue it’s the layer that almost needs to stay alive for consumerism to continue flourishing. We’ve all read or seen Fight Club, ‘you are the shit you buy’ etc etc. blah blah, misreadings all over the place, angsty morons begin lobbing their half-baked anti-I-don’t-even-fucking-know ideology about the place and generally using the pithy pseudo-ideology of an OK novel to legitimize their own bullshit. This of course implies that there’s a whole other level of consumerism going on, one which most people really…really don’t want to admit to, at least those who are supposedly critical of consumerism at large.

It’s easy to be critical of those buying the latest sports car, the latest TV, the biggest house etc. of consumerism, because, well, the things they’ve purchased are so large, garish and obvious that one cannot help to project their own insecurities into phrases such as “Compensating for something?”, “I just think people should live within their means.” and “Urgh, his/her life must be so empty.” Shut up. You’d have bought the same empty shit if you had the money or the chance. How do I know this? Because within your current ‘means’ you continue to buy the bullshit you can now! Every year or two you buy a new iPhone because, well…it came out – your old phone was fine of course, you just kinda…wanted the new one. You buy designer clothes even though you have perfectly fine clothes at home, you buy new editions of books because they’ll look nicer on your shelves, you – like 82% of the country (UK) – bought your ugly new car on finance, you just got new sofas because you changed your colour-scheme, you of course had to try that new sauce/meal/burger/wrap/drink from [insert food chain here]. The list goes on and on and fucking on! You are not outside of consumerism, you are so totally within it that you exist solely on hypocrisies at this point.

Thus far one could quite easily mistake the overarching idea of consumerism which I’m writing about here as simply a material ‘ism’. And that which we consume is only material, things and/or items etc. This is, once again, completely incorrect. The items of consumerism are secondary. Secondary to an idea. A shit, vacant, idiotic idea. The idea itself can’t be encapsulated by one phrase or statement because it subsumes lots of other socio-parameters into it. Status, normalcy, popularity, anxiety, paranoia, cultural-capital, to name just a few, are the fuel for this idea. The idea is of course simply consumption as means and meaning, but it’s so absolutely unconscious that – as I have stated – even those who attest to hate it, understand how it works or who are virulently against it continue to fall prey to its allure.

The problem is – as opposed to creation, mutation, differentiation and communication – consumption is very easy. So easy in fact we don’t even realize we’re doing it.

Let me ask you this dear reader, is your personality merely a culmination of your vices?

Are you an end-product of compounding material desires, ideological consumption and identity traits into a ‘being’?

Almost everything falls into the realm of consumption and it takes quite the alteration in perspective to remove yourself from the realm, so that your acts become somewhat ‘authentic’ (though I don’t want to venture into that avenue) or at least taken self-knowingly.

Remember when you were a child and you and your buddies stayed up late and watched some action-packed war film? The next day you went off the woods and pretended sticks were guns and rocks were grenades, you consumed the media and let it infect your identities – hey, at least when children do this is completely transparent. Hey, Brits, remember when Skins first came out and almost every other moron at school began to morph their personalities around those idiotic self-serving characters? Well I do, it was less transparent, but still a clear example of consumption at large.

After your teenage years I guess it becomes, at least for the masses, a little more tricky. See, the education system and the state – the two teats adults suck on for security of both an individual and collective kind – teach very little (if anything) about that which is external to consumption. Your classes at school were all formed in a manner of consumption – consume data to prove X, you consume various bits of state red-tape to be able to form your life and then continue to discuss said consumption in such a way that it fills your day and makes you seem real and connected to the norm.

“Fucking tax man took a bite out of my paycheck!”

“Got this weird housing letter about my rent…”

“I hope I pass X-exam, I’ve studied hard'”

There’s nothing in any of this, it’s the filler conversation which makes up 99% of life – unless you make the decision to exit from those people and places, which is relatively easy…but perhaps you just life comfort.

“So Meta, if all adults are is this weird culmination of bits and pieces they’ve consumed, what makes you so special? How can anyone not be some odd creature of consumptive habit?”

Well dear reader, that’s a very astute question, thank you for asking. When I write these posts I generally think that I come across as a condescending arsehole, I don’t massively care. Those who’ve I’ve offended are offended solely because of resentment, and wish their comforts had not been questioned. Those who are angry now, but willing to look inward will be thankful later.

#Anyway, the question at large I guess is this, ‘How can you not be a consumer?’ I mean, everyone consumes at a fundamental level don’t they? Water, food and shelter are things we need and so we consume them, the key point of argument then is the difference between a need and a want, or in French, between a need and a desire. You need shelter, water and food. You don’t need a new TV, a fancy car and brand name clothes. All of these are simply lifestyles being sold to you, visions of a future wherein you have higher status, greater popularity and more people life you. Look at that guy in the prototype Audi A333, wrapped in 30 layers of Ralph Lauren with a TV implant in his head, he is cool…he is alpha. For a good novel on this absurd form of consumerism I recommend James Palumbo’s TOMAS.

Anyway, the reason everyone consumes, and no one is immune from the consumerist lifestyle is that pretty much everyone is, at least in some way, weak. I’m weak to books, especially esoteric and obscure books, I consume then like a rabid animal. In a certain sense I’ve bought into some ideal there and am beginning to move from it. If this is the case then consumerism at large, in definition, is largely defined by the reasons why someone is purchasing something as opposed to act of consumption in itself. It doesn’t matter if you’re buying McDonalds or organic, fairtrade, homegrown, vegan, non-GMO, gluten free jam, it’s the reason you’re buying them. You’re probably buying the formed because some remnant of a heartfelt kitsch McDonald’s advert is lodged in the back of your mind and you suddenly just ‘fancied’ a burger, think on your actions for more than a second and you will immediately stop consuming as much, the latter however might be bought out of sincerity, but it also might be bought out of virtue. Hell, a lot of that kind of vegan, wholefoody stuff must be bought out of virtue alone…’cus it tastes like shit.

Strangely, this is were my now not-so-recent flirtation with Occultism come in handy. (With that said, I think continued reading, research and practice of Occultism means it’s no longer a flirtation and something more…) See, in my Greer interview he notes of the animatronic Santa Claus figures you get at Christmas. You know the ones, you press the button, he dances and sings a tune, the family laughs for 2 seconds, it gets thrown out in a few months. The point is if people actually thought about their purchase decisions for more than a nano-second entire industries wouldn’t even exist. Consumerism in its entire is a demonic force that preys on passivity and apathy. You’re not thinking, you don’t care and you’re hardly even mentally awake, and that’s why you feel alienated and empty, you’re simply the crass compound human-butter made solely of vapid desires and parasitic dreams. In short, you’re an unthinking idiot.

Want to get ‘out’ of consumerism and edge a little closer towards authenticity and a more content, fulfilling being, it’s quite simple, practice meditation. Specifically discursive meditation:

“To get the best results, discursive meditation requires the same sort of preliminaries that the more familiar forms of meditation do. The standard advice among old-fashioned occultists was to sit in a chair with your spine comfortably straight, not leaning against the back; your feet are flat on the floor; your legs are parallel to each other, and bent at a right angle; your hands rest on your thighs close to your knees, and your elbows are at your sides. Every muscle you don’t need to use to stay upright is as relaxed as you can get it. Having assumed the position and deliberately relaxed the muscles just mentioned, you breathe slowly and deeply for several minutes, paying attention to the inflow and outflow of the breath, and turn your mind away from every topic of thought except the theme of your meditation.” – Foundations of Magical Practice: Meditation

I practice (though not as routinely as I’d like) 2 forms of discursive meditation. Firstly the one above which I practice prior to bed for 15 minutes, or until the question has been answered and dissolves. I also practice a form of questioning/discursive meditation with a friend – this is a personal invention, but great for quick problem solving. Find a friend in whom you can trust to tell the depths of your soul. Your question or predicament may be serious or harmless etc. Have them question you after every answer.

“I think I need a new job.”


“This one isn’t fulfilling.”


“The work doesn’t suit me.”

“What is it about the work?”

“It’s dull, meaningless.”

“What work do you think would have meaning for you?”

You get the picture, anyway, I find both of these forms of ‘meditation’ extremely useful in day to day life.

And so you want to exit consumerism, perform a discursive meditation either on a consumptive habit that is frustrating you (Netflix, smoking etc.) or on your consumptive habits in general, note the results, reflect on the initial problem and the answer that helps you find some peace with it. Often the two would have be very difficult to connect.

Exit from the Office

In general I don’t agree with the idea of ‘guilty pleasures’, if you enjoy something, then go enjoy it. I mean, imagine being so Oedipalized that you legitimately feel some form of shame or guilt because you enjoy something considered by others to be silly, lame etc. With this said, I currently have 3 rather peculiar guilty pleasures. Now I consider these guilty pleasures because they can all be placed under the same rather rough headings: Western Detritus, What-the-Fuck-Happened, Peak Society, Surrogate Activities etc. Perhaps if I list them you’ll get the idea. My 3 current guilty pleasures are all visual. Speed-eating videos, video game speedruns and – very recently – watching Fortnite.

Wait, Meta, you said you never really watched TV or anything of this sort? It’s true, I don’t, usually. And this is why I actually count these as guilty pleasures. Unlike stereotypical guilty pleasures – which are actual pleasures – I don’t really enjoy watching any of these things. I watch them in the same way you watch ants carry bits of wood back to the nest, the same way you watch a dog try solve a put-the-shape-in-the-hole problem. I watch them in a sort of trance. I think to myself ‘This is where we’ve got to, this is it, this is the magnum opus of society’. And I can never get past these thoughts. Perhaps this is why they interest me so much. With my rather extensive education in the arts and philosophy I can generally tackle a problem – intellectual or personal – and figure it out in some way within a short space of time (Guess what, the answer is usually just to fucking act.) But with these 3 things I can’t get anywhere, I can’t work it out, it’s like ants on speed reveling in nonsensical excesses.

Don’t worry, this does relate to the ‘getting into a trade’ and ‘exiting marketing’ part of this post, but I do need a little more exposition. So firstly, the speedeating. I watch this channel called BeardMeatsFood, for a sample of this content – if you’ve never come across ‘competitive eating’ before – check out this link for his 100,000 calorie challenge. In the words of one of the bystanders in an episode of Man Vs Food “This is the stuff of legends!”

And perhaps that man was right, perhaps these are our legends now, these are our myths. Doughy soyboys who utilize facial hair as personality to promote a Youtube channel where they eat…lots of food, interspersed with tinny rock music, a time-frame and a calorie counter. I cannot assemble these parts into any coherent whole, there’s no unification here that modernity will allow me.

I wont link video game speedrunning here as I imagine many of my readers will know of it already, if not, just look it up. Basically it’s completing a video game in the shortest time possible – with defined limits and rules etc. Now, I guess as some form of challenge it’s intriguing. But there are many people currently playing years old games attempting (daily) to scrape mere milliseconds off their completion time. Ted Kaczynski calls activities that we’re doing other than aiding our survival or fulfilling our actual needs ‘surrogate activities’, God only knows what he would call these activities. I call them nothing, apathy and lack of self-discipline. At least in a practical sense. Other than those forms of criticism I can’t find anything in them.

Much like my recent guilty torture of watching Fortnite. This came about because a friend kept going on about it and intrigue got the better of me. I watched a good 30-40 minutes of a ‘professional’ (send nukes) Fortnite live stream. And well, after that time I still couldn’t figure out what was going on, honestly. I get the general gist of a battle royale type game of course, but it just makes no sense to me anymore. This is going somewhere, I promise.

See, I ended up in this marketing job for a camping company. The job, and I stress, this is what we consider a job these days, consisted of looking after their social media, creating digital adverts and the occasional bit of customer service work. Now, the days were 8 and a half hours long with an hour commute time each way. For the first 2 hours I’d answer emails and social media queries and then…I’d sit and look at the computer screen or wait for the phone. Now, many people would find this absolute bliss, doing fuck all all day, I’m sure many could have stayed there for the rest of their lives mindlessly scrolling away on their phones, or eating junk. But it made me realise something. Marketing is one of the few ‘skilled’ office jobs. By that I mean, there’s little to no actual skill in customer service or admin type jobs – and before you shout at me, I’ve done these too – a well trained monkey could honestly do many of these jobs. They’re for slaves who adore being told what to do, people who not only take no pride in their work, but take no pride in anything, have no principles or ambitions and wish merely to grind until death. Fuck them, go away, I hate even thinking about such an existence. Anyway, back to marketing being ‘skilled’. If this is a skilled office job, the majority of people are working these jobs which are – to paraphrase Dmitry Orlov – “The embroidery on the fabric of society.” And here I go full Peterson, I don’t care.

I realized that most people cannot contribute, help or even understand the very basics of how society functions. Most people are so incompetent that they truly believe things just happen and appear, that stuff can actually be thrown away, to some mystical land. I started having very practical realizations of things I had thought about in abstract but had yet come into contact with. People don’t know how to do shit. Most people are spending their lives tailoring their energies towards being able to make a better phone call, take a better photograph, create a better advert, write a better piece of content etc. I’m going to take for granted here that my readers understand that I understand these things can of course have their place, but in my opinion, not after the basics have been taught.

There I was, dwindling away at a laptop, for all intents and purposes…pissing time away on idiotic nonsense. Creating little bits of bullshit to sell someone a tent, a tent which both I and the consumer have absolutely no idea how it’s made, nor where or who by. It is just a thing which I communicate we are selling. As far as I’m concerned the job was beyond meaningless, it was odd, a surreal experience of life in the office. Hell, to be quite honest.

It was much like the speed-eating, speedrunning or Fortnite viewing, it was an odd nothingness. It was fluorescent lights humming for 8 hours until I could leave. It was a person, sitting in a room, tapping at a small black object and not diverting their attention anywhere else for 8 hours. It was a being, with the potential to learn, help and form a self, dwindling their finite time away into a vortex of modern bullshit. It was, quite seriously, a mind-numbing form of sterilization. A slow death. No wonder everyone is so tired, depressed, anxious, paranoid and chubby. Their lives consist of sitting for 8-9 fucking hours in the same spot, staring at the same 30″ screen, moving only their fingers! This is your fucking life! You’re a fucking rat in cage! A cage you willingly stepped into because you’re too scared of the risks of the alternative! Get the fuck out! Find somewhere with some beauty, some peace, some people who are of your own and discussions which make you feel at home. Find heart within a skill, a trade, something other than being an automaton who promotes the ideology of the corps out of the mere comforts it brings them. And this is why I mentioned those videos. If you wish to feel how I did, or how the somewhat awake, lonely, alienated and ostracized (from their animalistic biology) office worker does, then watch one of those videos, it is the static death that modernity leaves at your door right after wrapping it in pretty paper.

Luckily a friend told me of a job going at a joinery place he worked at, I also knew the owner (so I’ll be very honest here), considering I have only amateur joinery experience, it was a stroke of luck I got the job. Right place, right time. However, I jumped onto that opportunity around 3-4 hours after hearing about it and didn’t look back. My first week has been extremely basic in a meaningful way. I finish, prime, assemble and prepare bespoke doors, windows, stairs etc. for people who’ve ordered them. People need windows and doors and I’m part of that process. At the end of the day I can see the work I’ve done.

I feel worked too. And no, I’m not one of these people who believes you should have to feel exhausted at the end of every day. But if you believe it is unusual to feel tired or physically knackered at the end of the day…if you come home and you complain, just one time, of feeling physically knackered, then guess what, your privilege levels are through the roof. You just don’t have a clue. You whine about suffering, but when will you realize that once you realize life is suffering then it no longer is. The more you keep it at bay, the more it will haunt your day.

I beg you, friends, from the heart, to exit the office. I understand of course that many of you simply cannot do this. Many of you with families are making the sacrifices needed, and many of you many have monetary problems which I do not understand, both of these I can empathize with. For those of you who feel locked in, strapped to your chair like a prisoner, whose minds are darting back and forth in fits and starts, whose brain matter in eroding, whose legs are tapping constantly. Those of you who want to step up onto that shitty Ikea desk and shout “WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?! WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING?! THIS IS NOT LIFE! THIS IS NOT LIVING!” I honestly beg of you to think of your commitments, tally them up, write them down, see if you can survive an exit from modernity. Do what you WILL and exit that place which wishes only to keep on capturing your spirit…


Cosmic Bemusement: On the Red Pill

“They lived in a cramped two-bedroom apartment above a cybercafe near the University of Toronto. Since No. 9 was out of town, I put my bags in his room and joined Mystery in the kitchen. Patricia had broken up with him, for good this time. And he’d been staying in his room a lot, playing a video game called Morrowind and downloading lesbian porn. Getting out of the house for these upcoming workshops would be good therapy for him.” – The Game – Neil Strauss

Around the age of 16-17 I fell directly into the demographic utterly primed and ready to read ‘The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists’. I was young, extremely online, nerdy, loved to research things and enjoyed video games, as such, a book which would explain and deconstruct the techniques of how to get women to me was of course an almost biblical event. For those of you who haven’t read it, or don’t really know what it’s about, well, it follows ‘Style’ (Neil Strauss) as he enters the work of ‘pickup’ (how to pickup women) and seemingly goes from beta to alpha, though arguably this isn’t the case. Anyway, it was actually an extremely important book for me. Hell, me and some of my friends followed this thing like it was practically biblical scripture for around a year. One friend even invited 26 women into a Facebook group chat and messaged them “Who fancies going on an adventure!?”. Damn, I remember one distinct time where I was being dragged around a bar with a duplicate card in my pocket so I could wing-man my friend with his pithy magic tricks. Yes I did pull, and so did he.


Opened my eyes to the fact others are viewing the work from entirely alien perceptions, made me realize how transparent things can be/become and ultimately made me find some authenticity within myself a little more. This was my first, very minor taste, of the ‘Red Pill’. “Wait, what’s the Red Pill?” Where you been, living under a rock?


“Because there’s truth in the red pill. Because men are realizing that the sexual marketplace has shifted away from what we’ve been taught. Men who grew up over thirty years ago are discovering the world has changed. Men who are still growing up- from the 80s, 90s, and even the last decade, they’re starting to realize that what their parents taught them, what television and chick flicks taught them, what church and sunday school taught them… it’s all wrong.” – (Here)

So I took a few years away from ‘game’ or ‘pickup’, I mean, I still ran a lot of the shit when I went out, I mean hell…it worked! And that was the problem, it was a real ‘kids with dynamite’ situation. Here I was a 18-20 something with not much life experience, who by chance stumbled across some text, which when applied fairly rigorously gives at least seemingly noticeable results. Was I banging hundreds of chicks? No. I didn’t go out that much, I was still a nerd. Was I way more successful with women than before? Hell yes. And much of it’s stuck, but in a good way now, but I’ll get to that. Anyway, yes, kids with dynamite. I’d get these girls, fuck around for a few weeks and then realize I was basically challenging myself to do all this, to prove to God knows who that I even could do it. So I ended up stuck in multiple situations in which I just could not emotionally handle the end result. I.e. I wasn’t really interested, not really. I just wanted to prove to myself I could, and I did and well…that was that.

So I took a couple more years out from ‘pickup’, I actually had a fairly long relationship during this period of my life. Wait. Long for me…7 months. But I didn’t really go to-and-fro nor put myself out there much. I was focused on drinking and more drinking at this juncture. Anyway, push came to shove with the drinking phase, boy, this must have been around 4 years ago now. I’ve occasionally crumbled and had a few weeks binge, but my interest in the sauce is gone. (That said, I’m still wary of it, I do have some sort of problem. Perhaps I’ll write about this at some point?) So I began to sort myself out. Note: This coincides with when I found the right-wing. And no, this is not a coincidence, there is correlation.

So I began on that oh so typical path of self-improvement, one which I’m still on as many of you know. But of course in the early stages this meant regaining confidence, strength, vigor, game etc. and so I was lead back to the sphere of pickup. But this time I began with the more fundamental texts, the hard-hitting Red Pill stuff, the bitter as hell stuff. The reading list was as follows:

No More Mr Nice Guy – Robert Glover. I actually still like this book, it’s important and I’ll cover why later.

Models – Mark Manson. Once again, I like this one too, if you want to read a good book on game, get this one.

The Rational Male – Rollo Tomassi. Here we go…


So, The Rational Male is a fairly dense, analytical and highly – you guessed it – rational book. On first read those men who feel they’ve been neglected, or treated unfairly by society with regard to women etc. find this book almost revelatory, a religious experience. Their eyes are opened and all that is true regarding the biological and socio-political structures which are from women controlling them, are revealed. I wont go into them here, their very long and very dry. Hypergamy is the main one. Which is the shorthand for stating that women select, or are constantly selecting the best possible mate with regard to social status.

Hypergamy doesn’t care that you had a bad day.”

Hypergamy doesn’t care that you enjoy eating food.”

“Hypergamy doesn’t care that you lost all your limbs.”

“Hypergamy doesn’t care that you’re a Shoggoth.” etc etc.

So it’s all this kind of thing, very analytical and very ‘proof’ or social proof heavy. Whatever, if that’s your deal, that’s your deal. I have little against any of these authors personally, but something really does irk me about this whole thing.

See, I first noticed it after one of the first clear Red Pill fragmentations. Where a load of Red Pill guys – at least this is my understanding of the situation – thought the whole thing was a little too female-centric and started a movement called ‘Men Going Their Own Way’ (MGTOW). What I noticed was that much like ‘post-modernism’ MGTOW was ‘always already’ tethered to that which it so despised, namely women. (Which I don’t despise by the way, I haven’t the time, nor patience for such bitterness. And if my old ‘pickup’ pals are reading this and wincing, cringing or weeping, good, fuck off and grow up.) So, basically MGTOW is trying to say that their going to focus their lives solely on a path away from women…hmm OK, so how does that look?

“Hey! Look at me doing X…without women.”

“Hey! I’m working out…in spite of women!”

“Hey! I made myself a great lunch…something to do with women.”

You can see where this is going. My point being, and this is the large, cantankerous point of this whole write-up is this. Red Pillers, if you’re so above all ‘this’, if you’re so woke, wise and unplugged, if you’re living the way you want and improving oh so much, why do you focus/return almost every facet of your entire back/with regard to women? You lift to impress women and improve your status. You read for the same reason. You work, climb, eat well, run, intellectualize and generally self-improve not for your self, but for some collective female self you’ve created. Just one more rep and finally you’ll be free of the great vaginal burden you have to carry!

See, Red Pillers note that the major problem of society at current is the ‘feminine imperative’:


“The Feminine Imperative is that when a woman follows her pussy, it should have good results for her, and if it does not have good results for her, it is the fault of some dastardly man and not an indication that women are too childish and irresponsible to be allowed to follow their pussies.

Whenever illicit female sexual desires lead to illicit acts which have bad consequences, those consequences are deemed to be the fault of men, and it is the duty of men to make female sexual desires come out with good consequences for the woman, even if it means bad consequences for the man. Man up and marry those sluts!” –


So where am I going with this? Well, and I might put a lot of this down to my recent forays with Egoism, but largely I see all of these strange focuses, neuroses and emphases as personal oddities and delusions. That’s not to say I’m not sympathetic to an argument regarding the ‘feminine imperative’ no, once again, this wouldn’t be the point I’m trying to get at. My point would be that all this time and energy spent reading book after book and blog post after blog post on game, PUA, red pill etc. seems to be fuel to the fire which is burning your house of masculinity down.

“Why do women – supposedly – ruin everything?”

“Well, why do you keep reading shit about women ruining everything? Christ dude, get a fucking hobby.”

All this – somewhat truthful and helpful – human-centered gunk about frame and confidence etc. in my opinion dissolves once such notions are based upon your readings and acceptance of another’s work. ‘Man, I’m so fucking confident! Look how confident I am applying paragraph 3C of Pussy Slaya V3!’

This is precisely why the words ‘cosmic bemusement’ are in the title. And sure, you can say ‘Well Meta, you drag everything to your dumbarse pseudo-nihilistic cosmic level and it all erodes’ and I’d say ‘Sure does!’. But this isn’t about that.

I am cosmically bemused at the fact that those who inhabit the Red Pill way of life center their lives around the very thing they proclaim to hate. That such a group who are hyper-critical of X continue to gravitate every facet of their being, in some form, back to X. That such a group can seemingly conceive of no notion of life outside of X. I’m puzzled at their purpose, they wish to find meaning and yet they give it away at the first hurdle. ‘What would this mean to X?’, ‘How will this look for X?’ etc.

I see this as a larger form of societal, if not cosmic alienation (non-Marxian). It’s not men, nor women, nor people, not a collective which is trapped in some form, but is a general repression-of-the-spirit (non-Hegelian). Confidence is gone not through some strange socio-political, histo-cultural statistic, or enforcement or rule regarding only one factor of society no. There’s a multitude of factors culminating in the dampening and numbing of a general spirit. Yes, many modern men are afraid to approach women, but their also afraid to lift weight, work hard, eat cow heart, dance, act weird – and the same applies to women.

That’s sort of it, I haven’t much more to say on the Red Pill. It’s repetitive and I needed to get this out of my system.