How do you argue against Nick Land?

That last part is backwards–in his new, neoreactionary phase he says he's not the same person who wrote the pre-neoreactiory CCRU stuff. From that first link at archive.is/uOXeV –

Thanks user, this is really interesting stuff.

As disappointing as that is, it doesn't really matter if the neoreactionary Land and the other Land aren't the same person. The Land who wrote things of any value is simply dead, and happens to share the same name with a neoreactionary.

The other Land was so much on the line between madness and genius that he must have fallen over to the other side. He's the cybernetic Nietzsche of our time.

Tell him to fuck off

"Increasingly, there are only two basic human types populating this planet. There are autistic nerds, who alone are capable of participating effectively in the advanced technological processes that characterize the emerging economy, and there is everybody else. For everybody else, this situation is uncomfortable. The nerds are steadily finding ways to do all the things ordinary and sub-ordinary people do, more efficiently and economically, by programming machines. Only the nerds have any understanding of how this works, and — until generalized machine intelligences arrive to keep them company — only they will."

THIS IS WHAT NICK LAND ACTUALLY BELIEVES

...

So you want to be ruled by the autistic. Okay!

That's not what I said you fucking retard. His analysis of the trajectory of capitalist society in parallel with technological advancement is completely correct. That doesn't mean I want to end up being a Google serf >implying I wouldn't be one of the autistic nerds ruling over all you untermensch anyways :^)))

My question is why people around here seem to care most about Land out of all the NRx autists.

Wasn't he a former Marxist? And if he was, did he make any contributions of consequence?

He's a very interesting thinker before he became an NRx. And like I said earlier, I still suspect that he's intentionally essentially playing the part of a capitalist villain, creating the fictional philosophy of a cyberpunk dystopia.

If not, who cares. The old Nick Land and the NRx one are basically not even the same person.

But what did the old Nick write, anyway? I don't really know much about him, besides some of his NRx stuff.

Reading some of his NRx work made me think that socialism ought to be rethought and updated for the 21st century. The advancement of technology is a very dangerous double-edged sword. It could be used in a socialist context to ameliorate the suffering of the average worker by a hundred fold, reduce the work day, maintain post-scarcity, distribute goods more efficiently, etc., etc. But technology can also be used for nefarious purposes, as we have seen with the rise of Google and other aspiring technocrats.

Shit's scary.

So I browsed his blog a little (xenosystems.net/).

His reactionism stems from a complete rejection of universalism. He views the enlightenment project complete and successful and the resulting world as the unfolding of its inherent flaws.

He views liberalism as the necessary and hegemonic false consciousness barring us from this realization; Marxism, Jacobinism, Hegelianism, et al. as a misguided projects wanting the same universalism on different footings.

What is fascinating is his defence and advocacy for (his particular kind of) particularism – statements like these speak volumes: "Nationalism is far more of an Alt-Right than an NRx priority", "Universalism is death." Communities (be they national, familial, goal-oriented) for him are naturally xenophobic and this trait serves self-interest. The apocalyptic ethos of the site comes from the near impossibility of creating such closed groups (an attempt resonating with the failures in his personal life) – surely there's a limit to this universalist hodgepodge world, it must come soon!

Their political front: critique of activism, waiting for the big crash, self-pollution. Al in all, it's a site about pity egoist survivalism masked as an intellectual endeavour.

I've got a copy of fanged noumena, and it's worth a read (in parts).

Honestly, I prefer Land's fiction to his philosophy. He's great on Kant, but actually quite poor on Hegel.

You assume there is anything to disagree with.

Nick Land is what you get if you combine Marxo/Deleuzianism with Terminator. Accelerationism is not only is to be desired, but also propagated.

Read the Accelerationist manifesto:

criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/accelerate-manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/

That's Left-Accelerationism, which Land fundamentally differs with.

On a certain level, theoretical Accelerationism is functionally giving up on society and revolutionary movements. Anyone who calls themselves an 'accelerationist' is also generally intolerable irl.

>xenosystems.net/

...

You assume there is anything to disagree with.

Nick Land is what you get if you combine Marxo/Deleuzianism with Terminator. Accelerationism is not only is to be desired, but also propagated.

Read the Accelerationist manifesto:

criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/accelerate-manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/

...

No thanks.

Go away.

Another rare quality post from the yui tripfaggot, treasure it folks you only see these on a blue moon

Interesting piece, which the Accelerationist manifesto completely rips from any wider Marxian analysis.

I like the book, but it's not anything to base your political views upon.

He still writes pretty cool Lovecraftian "abstract horror" that draws on the notion of trying to imagine a reality beyond the mental filters imposed by the human mind and human culture, something like Kant's noumenal, which was a consistent interest of his in the CCRU days too. Check out his books Phyl-Undhu and Chasm if this sort of things sounds like it might be appealing to you. Another possible point of continuity with his CCRU days: although he's sort of vague on his hopes for the endpoint of neoreaction, there still seem to be a lot of hints (see archive.is/9aObc for example) that he's less interested in seeing a world of human CEO-emperors and more interested in actualizing some sort of emergent transhuman intelligence that he thinks will emerge from the capitalist economy, a kind of alien god outside of all human conceptions (for a science fiction depiction of something similar, see Charles Stross' book "Accelerando"). He's a weirdo, but for that reason probably the most interesting of all the neoreactionaries.

I'm also looking forward to reading "Neoreaction: A Basilisk" which I quoted from earlier, by the critic Philip Sandifer who identifies as an "anarcho-Marxist" and seems to come from the same sort of critical theory world that Land came from. Sandifer's writings tend to focus on leftist takes on science fiction and fantasy stuff like the comics of Alan Moore and shows like Doctor Who and Game of Thrones (he's also very into William Blake), and he says he really enjoyed Land's two horror stories. The book is focusing on the trio of Moldbug and Land and Eliezer Yudkowsky (who is a non-neoreactionary transhumanist), and it's supposed to be about looking at these three writers through the lens of "horror philosophy" rather than just a political polemic against neoreaction (although there will be some of that too).

Philip Sandifer who identifies as an "anarcho-Marxist"

but seriously share pdf plz

polite sage

Just to be clear, "identifies" was my choice of words, not Sandifer's. I suppose I phrased it that way because it's not clear to me what "anarcho-Marxist" actually means, given that Marx clearly believed there needed to be a socialist state immediately following the revolution.

...

quality post

quality author:

Better than you :^)

He isn't. Well, not about the autistic nerds.
The irony of their obsession with AI is that the programmers are eagerly on the path to making themselves obsolete. Once the first Turing Machine is finished, silicone valley will be dumped like a hot sack of shit as the bourgeousie kick back and enjoy their self-programming gizmos and never need an engineer again.

He is right about the fact that Trump's great grandson will probably have tentacles and a 10G transmitter built into his head that allows him to simultaneously rape poor people in both the real world and the Matrix, and that joining a batshit insane militia based out of the mountains will probably be your best way to not be tentacle raped by billionaires once the world turns into a 24/7 hentai shitshow.

As for how to argue against him, the only answer is revolution. Land is right (with the exceptions mentioned above) about the future of capitalism.
Unless the bourgeoisie are destroyed as a class, they will destrly the world.

>reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/4mgdm8/will_harry_be_a_bisexual_polyamorist_in_the/

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Holla Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my part to help you get used to revolutionary anonymity!

"The problem with this children's book featuring child characters is that the child characters act like children. Also there needs to be a way to fit some rape in here. Just gotta get in some rape. Can't not have rape in a story bout 11 year olds."
t. yudowsky

What's wrong with this? It makes perfect sense.

Don't argue against him. He's destroying the alt-right from within. Let him do his thing.