Nick Land General

probably because there is an oversaturation of writers and ppl can only discuss so much.

Interesting guy. Thanks for introducing.

We literally have a thread about this useless idiot every day.

No matter how hard I try, I can't understand a damn thing he says. Why does he insist on using obscurist language, instead of just telling us in plain English?
>inb4 bainlet
How can you expect anybody to understand, and spread your ideology if you're always this cryptic?

>How can you expect anybody to understand, and spread your ideology if you're always this cryptic?

How much philosophy do you read? Because if "very little" is your answer, I'm willing to bet that's why.

His etymological analysis of the word "Cracker" is fucking hilarious and enlightening.

jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/

Then read Land's Dark Enlightenment.

its not really an ideology that needs 'spreading'. It's not a political platform, it's a theory of capitalism and other competitive, positive feedback loops. I'd say his language is about as precise as it could be, honestly.

There is and it is called Veeky Forums

>How can you expect anybody to understand, and spread your ideology if you're always this cryptic?

The thesis of accelerationism is that it's too late to do anything about global capitalism, and, though we can't know what will happen next, that happening will have been inevitable. No need to spread an ideology if that's the case.

Also, from my experience (three essays into Fanged Noumena right now), Land is pretty straightforward, though he does talk in circles sometimes. "Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest" read a lot like a scientific paper, complete with an abstract that introduces/outlines the main ideas. You could just read the first few pages and walk away with a pretty solid understanding of the whole essay; the rest of it is just arguments for the thesis and additional parallels he sees between different modes of capitalist praxis.

>tl;dr
He's not hard to read if you know how academic writing functions. Google the Feynman Technique and learn to focus on a paper's abstract.

nrx is a bunch of boomer losers. They've all got kids and wives now. Hestia Society seems like some kind of retirement cult for capitalists that want to assuage their guilt and rant about hating blackies.

I wouldn't really call them losers per-say, many of them are obviously very successful. The way I see it, the far right has sort of come to this giant realization in the past few years that shit is fucked. Now for younger people this sort of comes out as the alt-right, a more revolutionary zeitgeist that's optimistic that they can change things to the way they think they should be, if gradually. But for older more jaded people, it's come out as NRx, which obviously sees revolution and change from the set course as impossible. It's really a tale as old as time, the young are idealistic and the old are jaded.

I'd be interested to learn the average net-worth of NRxers. There is a deep irony, that an attempt to take the logic of capitalism and apply it to politics would yield no serious investment. They've got blogs, they've got the Hestia Society (which seems like a website and not an actual social club). But where are the multi-million dollar think-tanks and research institutes. Where are the advertising campaigns? They aren't even attempting to weasel into the university system through endowments and gift-giving in the typical conservative Neo-Con fashion.

If they have money, they aren't using it for NRx.

oh, and why aren't they buying off politicians with campaign donations?

NRx should have the equivalent of the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and a large number of Super PAC fronts, but they don't. Its all theory and blogs.

But it's not really an ideology that needs to push itself, isn't the whole point of their theory that it's the inevitable conclusion of capitalism? I mean it's not even like Marxism where you need some kind of united-front revolution to overthrow the system, they see the current system as already leading their way. It's not a belief in the way things should be, but a belief in the way things will be. If you don't understand that then I think you've fundamentally misunderstood their position.

>The thesis of accelerationism is that it's too late to do anything about global capitalism
Nick would shudder at such a teleological conclusion. His point is more that capitalism seemed to emerge as its own system, but is actually the infinite process of approach toward itself, & that it is meaningless to talk about whether it is "too late" to do anything about it because it has always been "too late". In other words capitalism, or rather the acceleration of capital, is transcendental. At least that's what I could gleam from his writings and some of his lectures

I can see that argument about Land's 'unconditional accelerationism' but not about NRx. If the world is going to devolve nation states and unions of nation states into a patchwork of corporate territories, then practical systems need to be built, methods of liquidating failed nations. Capitalism has stock-markets, and no matter how 'inevitable' they were in the evolution of capitalism, someone had to organize them.

The patchwork has a huge fucking hurdle to get over: legacy nation states and their nationalist myths. It seems like there is plenty of practical work to be done.

one of the more interesting ideas talked about in the Outer Edges lecture seminars is the idea of 'buying out' a failed nation state. How much money would Assad or Kim Jung Un need in order to give up their failed projects? Is that even possible? But as it stands, nations don't go quietly into bankruptcy the same way the corporations do. They crash and burn, potentially destroying much more than themselves. That isn't corporatism, it's the arrogance of divine sovereignty.

So is his book Fanged Noumena any good? It's like $36 dollars cdn.

Read moldbug.

>The steel rule of passivism is absolute renunciation of official power. We note instantly that any form of resistance to sovereignty, so long as it succeeds, is a share in power itself.

>As a reactionary, you don't believe that political power is a human right. You will never convince anyone to adopt the same attitude, without first adopting it yourself. Since you believe others should be willing to accept the rule of the New Structure, over which they wield no power, you must be the first to make the great refusal.

pdf version here

Well, if that's Moldbug's theory, so be it. I just don't think the dissavowal of a political subject/project will actually lead to patchwork. The general trend of the last 4000 years is towards empire, regardless of whatever recent 'exits' have been occurring. Capitalism want's global reach, each actor would prefer monopoly for itself. Patchwork should be seen as the erecting of firewalls, of sectioning and formalizing interaction protocols over those firewalls.

Using leftist means to achieve reactionary ends doesn't work. I too doubt the patchwork, we will probably hit GAI far before that can happen (at which point it doesn't matter).

OTOH I disagree with the idea that the general trend of history is toward centralization, it seems much more cyclical to me. To put it broadly and in the European context: city states -> roman centralization -> city/small states -> empires -> nation states. Now we seem to be in a centralizing mode again, but you can already see the fault lines as incompatible cultures try to reconcile their aims.

>bainlet
Masketta man?

So who do I read before Land? Heidegger? Deleuze?

Bataille.

Marx, D&G