The contemporary left is being coaxed into formal acknowledgement of its core doctrinal commitment: "Whiteness is original sin." ...
... Once it arrives at self-realization, the new Wars of Religion can begin in earnest.
-Nick Land
The contemporary left is being coaxed into formal acknowledgement of its core doctrinal commitment: "Whiteness is original sin." ...
... Once it arrives at self-realization, the new Wars of Religion can begin in earnest.
-Nick Land
Why would a political religion have an interest in admitting to be one?
coaxed
What does a screenshot of a mediocre in-game book in a mediocre open world game have to do with your half-assed attempt at a thread?
Dunmer fucking deserve that shit, go back and play Morrowind if you want to see who the real racists are
What Land calls "the contemporary left" is in reality just a small subset of leftists.
t brainlet
How can leftists think whiteness is original sin if they think it's a social construct?
Besides, despite what Jordan Peterson has told you, the concept of white privilege has fuck-all to do with guilt.
Stop glowing in the dark.
All ideologies are religions in disguise, and christianity is what modern leftists are fated to derive their ideology. Even if they pretend to hate it.
nah, it's nearly all of them
even the most hardcore tankies are down with the id-pol program once you push it out of them
I can name maybe five or six leftist theorists in the last 50 years that virulently hated the id-pol project
The views of the modern majority were views of a tiny minority a hundred years ago. Since the discourse is always shiftng to the left, if you want to know what the moderates of the future will think, look at radicals today.
>glowing in the dark.
what's this meme i've seen lately? Been away for awhile. Seeing it lots.
>Besides, despite what Jordan Peterson has told you, the concept of white privilege has fuck-all to do with guilt.
It's hard to believe this when its white advocates are all creepy flagellants.
Nice spacing, mongrel.
_D
What is white privilege if it isn't guilt?
>he thinks someone who has an indepth knowledge of anti id-pol leftists is right wing and from reddit
daily reminder that liberals need to be gulag'd
You didn't respond to any of my points.
Anyway, I'm seriously left-wing and think Christianity is fascinating and valuable for politics. Read Terry Eagleton's 'Reason, Faith, and Revolution.
There is no "id-pol project". There's a confluence of independent id-pol movements.
Sure, and people grow from 0 to 6 ft tall in 15 years, that means 60 year old people should be 24ft tall.
Don't be niggerlicious and install TempleOS right now. It's the official Veeky Forums operating system.
t. false-flagging glow in the dark CIA nigger
>biology is the same as culture
kys
Way to miss the point, moron
It's a societal advantage afforded to white people by virtue of predominant beliefs about what it means to be white
Is this really Nick Land? I was looking forward to him but now I think I'll give him a pass
>i'm going to reason analogically, but dis-analogies aren't allowed
Thank you for signing your post as moron. I'm glad you identified yourself as such. We here at Veeky Forums are ok with brainlet retards. Does mommy allow your posting time after dinner?
>-Nick Land
isn't this guy's whole philosophy that white civilization is so unredeemably bad that they should desire replacement by robots?
really makes you think about the intelligence of the retard poltards that pay this guy any attention
lmao
BTFO
T
F
O
But how does it work to effect social change without using guilt as a mechanism?
Should white society not benefit whites? Should Nigerian society not benefit Nigerians?
>There is no "id-pol project". There's a confluence of independent id-pol movements.
The prevailing ideology of intersectionality seeks to incorporate them into a single project.
I have seen more profound posts daily on /pol/
>There is no "id-pol project". There's a confluence of independent id-pol movements.
You're mistaking the social groups with the theoretical project in academia that ties them all together (analysis of oppression). That user is talking about the latter. Pretty clear that's the context from his post, since he was talking about theorists conflicting with other theorists.
But Land says "the contemporary left" as if he is referring to more than just a small number of academics.
Academics are the primary drivers of leftism, and very few of them oppose this in any meaningful sense.
Why not call it minority disadvantage or the like then? Good luck selling the idea of privilege to the flyover trump voters
Read him first dummy
Leftists believe a fair society is a better society - where's the guilt?
What do you mean white society? The US, UK, Western Europe - none of these would be recognisable without the input of non-whites.
Also, Leftists believe in Western European enlightenment values of liberty equality and fraternity - the idea of human rights - so the idea that someone's race should determine their legal or social status is absurd.
Because we're talking about positive advantages.
btw I like how all these people supposedly against the idea of white privilege are essentially admitting it exists
>The US, UK, Western Europe - none of these would be recognisable without the input of non-whites.
You're right, they'd be something else entirely without all that crime.
oh fuck off with this revisionist nonsense.
the idea that these people should have any place in society is absurd.
the issue isn't if white privilege exists, its whether it is a bad thing, and honestly I've yet to see any arguments why it isn't besides cheap moral sentiment and appeals to a God who's relevance has long past.
if anything there needs to be more privilege, "white" privilege is already too base and spread out among those wholly unworthy to benefit from it, degenerating nobility even more so in order for the contemptible little mudbugs to feel more at home here is an incredibly disconcerting thought.
leftists believe in sunshine and rainbows until their pride and moral "virtue" is injured then its all fire and brimstone. what a complete joke, the fact that you shovel this dung at us sincerely is even more so.
>What do you mean white society? The US, UK, Western Europe - none of these would be recognisable without the input of non-whites.
>Also, Leftists believe in Western European enlightenment values of liberty equality and fraternity - the idea of human rights - so the idea that someone's race should determine their legal or social status is absurd.
What society should whites live in then? China is a Chinese country, Britain is not a British country. And please define how liberty, equality, and fraternity should exist in a society.
Not even talking about resident non-whites (who contribute far more to our way of life than they do threaten it). I'm referring to the entire network of global trade and production which depends on the labour of non-whites. This labour is the very basis of Western 21st Century lifestyles.
>cheap moral sentiment
What is politics without morality? Leftists believe in universal social justice, if you don't then the conversation can go no further. For a leftist you're just an obstacle to human flourishing.
>What society should whites live in then?
They're doing fine where they are as far as I can see. This is as absurd as asking where blond-haired people are supposed to live given that red-heads exist alongside them
>the whole world is USA hurr
Eagleton is a hack fraud who wishes he was a real philosopher
but if you think this you won't read his books and realise how great he is
Is he always this banal? The comparison is meaningless and he doesn't seem to understand what he's criticizing. It's reddit tier aphorising.
>They're doing fine where they are as far as I can see. This is as absurd as asking where blond-haired people are supposed to live given that red-heads exist alongside them
Not at all. It ignores the biological differences in race and the social conditions that gave rise to Europe that were not present in the rest of the world.
>it's so banal i can't even
> le "not all -muslims- leftist argument"
Really, user? 0/10
more like
>a British academic living in China gives his autistic "verdict" on the US based entirely on what he sees on Twitter
The consensus within the scientific community is quite clearly on the side of the idea that 'race' is a weak concept with little explanatory value. It is also on the side of the idea that biological differences between so-called 'races' are inconsequential.
>universal social justice
What a retarded and dangerous idea. It's so blatantly obvious that there's absolutely no consensus in the world on what this means, but leftists try to push for it anyway. Destroy borders, between countries and between individuals, whether people of various abilities, creeds or temperaments are capable of agreeing on the most basic ideals or not.
The leftist utopia is a materialist world in which permanence is a foreign concept, where everybody is in free-flowing flux. It is a world where unity and purity are dirty words, as they are already becoming. It is a world where ideals and excellence become foreign concepts because reaching for them will diminish the value of other people in relative terms. It would be an aimless and spiritless place.
>It is also on the side of the idea that biological differences between so-called 'races' are inconsequential.
You really don't know anything at all about medicine and forensics, do you?
>inconsequential
>an average IQ difference of 30 points between blacks and whites
yeah, no biggie
Of course universal social justice as an ideal is impossible to pin down so there can be no consensus; but it is the guiding principle that underlies leftist political action. And it has, as an idea, brought us tangible gains.
>The leftist utopia is a materialist world in which permanence is a foreign concept, where everybody is in free-flowing flux. It is a world where unity and purity are dirty words, as they are already becoming. It is a world where ideals and excellence become foreign concepts because reaching for them will diminish the value of other people in relative terms. It would be an aimless and spiritless place.
You're describing 21st Century global capitalism. Communities are broken up into deracinated alienated individuals who are forced to compete on a market. Beauty and art are sucked out of the world and replaced by profit motives. The world we are living in is an aimless and spiritless place - just read Kafka. And Kafka was, unsurprising given the content of his novels, an anarchist.
>Of course universal social justice as an ideal is impossible to pin down so there can be no consensus; but it is the guiding principle that underlies leftist political action
How is it a guiding principle, if the principle itself can't be pinned down? How exactly does leftist political action (the means) get generated from a principle (the ends) when the aim itself is nebulous?
>Leftists believe in universal social justice, if you don't then the conversation can go no further.
>universal social justice as an ideal is impossible to pin down so there can be no consensus
>the conversation can go no further on something that is impossible to pin down
Congrats for proving the user's point. You sound like a gnostic statist totalitarian nutball.
Injustice manifests itself in very real, immediate, and material ways - leftists combat these incidents of injustice because they believe that justice is more favourable than injustice. The end goal is to rid the world entirely of injustice, but to imagine what a world entirely free of injustice would look like is nigh impossible.
Marx's Capital wasn't a blueprint for a communist society but a rigorous critique of a capitalist one. It didn't need to be any more than that.
>>Leftists believe in universal social justice, if you don't then the conversation can go no further.
>>universal social justice as an ideal is impossible to pin down so there can be no consensus
that is quite the self-pwnage
leftists believe x but x has no consensus
lmao
Go eat dirt.
NRX are the biggest embarrassment of the modern world
Universal social justice is a principle that guides action; but what the world would look like should universal social justice be realised is impossible to imagine.
>It is well-known that the Jews were forbidden to look into the future. The Torah and the prayers instructed them, by contrast, in remembrance. This disenchanted those who fell prey to the future, who sought advice from the soothsayers. For that reason the future did not, however, turn into a homogenous and empty time for the Jews. For in it every second was the narrow gate, through which the Messiah could enter.
These don't address my questions at all.
Firstly, you are talking about concrete objects, when originally you were talking about an abstract object: "universal social justice" (USJ) as an ideal and ends. Secondly, you've negated the SJ without even bothering to tell us about the original object in question. Thirdly, the concrete objects themselves still have the abstract properties that are just the thing that I'm questioning (the property of negated USJ manifests itself in the concrete). Fourthly, you've tied a relation between SJ and not SJ (with an added unexplained normative component of favorability), when again you haven't even addressed the issues I raised about the nebulousness nature. Your response says nothing at all.
>impossible to imagine
"Social justice is a mystic negative theology"
Congrats for proving Nick Land right, while arguing throughout the thread the opposite.
Original sin is a Catholic doctrine - if social justice is a mystic negative theology that doesn't make it a Catholic one. What I said also had nothing to do with white-guilt
even bigger than furries?
You're out of your depth here as your response (catholicism and guilt) indicates you have no idea about what mysticism and negative theology is. Stating that something is impossible to imagine is inline with negative theology's doctrines on the ineffable nature of the divine described by mystics. That's what you are really asserting: a holy good thing that is impossible to conceive and talk about, but you must go on your holy quest to rid the opposite of it.
You're the equivalent of a religious nut.
Furies are fine
Social justice actually has a real effect on society with material effects, though.
>"Whiteness is original sin."
That is not its core doctrinal commitment. That is also a facade.
Its core commitment is: "Power is original sin."
Going deeper, the world is truly a divisive battle between two forces: they are embodied the most purely in the Dionysus vs. Christ play that Nietzsche put forward. The former is ecstasy, "everything at once", a multitude, godless, abyssal; the latter is a funnel into a single path, "One God", a singular nothingness. Out of the former rises always hierarchy because when there is a multitude there is necessarily inequality. Out of the latter rises always ressentiment because the hierarchy of the physical world exists and you will be subjugated to it despite your intentions.
Being against whiteness today is being against the powers that be.
So did burning witches on pyres and brainwashing children to go on crusades.
Anyway, I'm done here, as you never addressed my questions above (pretty sure you are unable to), and its clear there is no real conversation to be had with you, as your personal belief verges into mysticism and millennialism.
Certain groups still have their DNA culster together, express similar traits, and have different medical problems.
>social justice
>Oh yeah, justice is done. Not actual justice, but what I wanted to happen, which is basically the same thing.
This is just not a question of sin, no matter how much you want to conflate Christianity and leftist politics. Nick Land believes that leftist's believe they have within them some evil that must be expunged through political activity (whiteness ergo white-guilt).
This is not what leftists believe. They believe that inequality and injustice exist in the world and that a better world is possible by challenging inequality and injustice.
If it is religious nuttery to believe that a better world is possible, but that it would be impossible to accurately describe how that world would look, then so be it. But do bear in mind that people could not have conceived of our world 50 years ago, even if they did recognise technological advancement as a positive principle.
>What is politics without morality?
Politics pure and simple, you don;t think this christian softness is the rule in other parts of the world do you? or has been true through all time. politics is pragmatism at its core, this is the basis of Legalism and most Chinese influenced states who continue to follow this amoral code.
amoral doesn't mean unnecessarily cruel, but it lacks this completely useless sentiment designed to give the weak and useless a feeling as if they have something to contribute to the dialectic.
>obstacle to human flourishing
more useless platitudes, what flourishing? man has moved more and more towards mediocrity, stagnancy, and triviality as the liberal decline continues.
speaking with someone who obsesses over morality/ideology is utterly useless since its the same as talking to a mental patient and trying to convince them the demons in their head are just phantasms. they have nothing to contribute and only serve to drag people down to their own level of inadequacy.
coincidentally it is a kind of listless empty existence that attracts nihilistic young people to this sort of poisonous ideology
It is religious nuttery to believe you have solved ethics, that you know what justice is, and you know what course the world should take.
The modern left has no more solved the problems of ethics and epistemology than anyone before them. They believe they have solved them though, which is the issue their opponents have, as normally what happens when people think they have the answers to everything is catastrophe
>It is religious nuttery to believe you have solved ethics, that you know what justice is, and you know what course the world should take.
This is precisely what I *haven't* said - I said we could only have a vague idea of what a just world would look like. But the fact that we cannot know what justice is does not mean we cannot act with an idea of justice in mind as we engage in principled political struggles.
I accept the comparison to theology - I've already quoted Walter Benjamin - but his thought took the manner that it did precisely because he was unhappy with the confident progressivism of Soviet Marxism - which, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, really was the belief that Marxism solved history and logic with dialectical materialism. The modern left has little in common with this.
>>actual justice
>principled political struggles
>principles that we can't describe, but we can act on
>but don't worry, we'll tell you like good priests what those principles are after the fact
other anons are right you're insane
Your healthy skepticism is not widely shared. Which is what people are pointing out.
>the confident progressivism of Soviet Marxism
This is being mirrored today by shrill self assured members of the bourgeoisie who can't entertain the idea they might be wrong. People unironically believing stuff about the 'right side of history'. It seems to me at least that the modern left has a great deal in common with this.
>But do bear in mind that people could not have conceived of our world 50 years ago, even if they did recognise technological advancement as a positive principle.
50 years ago your fellow traveller Mao also conceived a world through positive principles and struggle.
>50 years ago your fellow traveller Mao also conceived a world through positive principles and struggle.
So what you're saying is he had political beliefs and wanted to see them realised? Is this an argument against political beliefs, ideas and ideals and the idea of acting on them?
>ideas and ideals
There is a hard line between these two conceptions and you have smudged it
user I cannot describe the ideal argument to you, but I can assure you that a better argument exists.
>the fact that we cannot know what justice is does not mean we cannot act with an idea of justice in mind
And you are saying this is *not* like a religion?
You probably don't live in one of the strongholds. Literally every conversation I have in San Francisco is
>white people bad
>trans poc folk good
I don't have a problem with trans poc folk, but it gets tiring hearing the same sentiments stated over and over again.
Somewhat related note: how do I become conservative?
>Somewhat related note: how do I become conservative?
You don't because conservatives are all toothless pussies who fail to ever conserve anything because they are afraid of being named reactionaries. Instead, become a reactionary.
You believe that 'person of color' is a real thing so you're pretty much lost
Not a bad response, honestly.
Your mom is a mediocre open world game.
His parroting the rhetoric you moron
The point is not having no problem with trans poc folk, but instead in the conflation of whiteness and original sin. First I always make one who says White specify which ethnicity they are referring to. Nobody is white, instead a melange of light tones. Blacks are truly devoid of color, and in that soul. For the skin tone speaks to what lies within.
Don't bother with either, although as far as political positions stand I'd have the hardest time critiquing the Reactionary.
It's been awhile since I've seen a leftist shill get btfoed that hard
Fuck the flyover Trump voters. 20 bucks says they can't do it again
>still believes in IQ
>doesn't believe iq tests are written by and for white westerners
>Probably prays to mensa
How's 18 feel?
The wit and intelligence of Skyrim fans in full display.
>All these buzzwords spooks and uncontested assumptions
>pretending the exact opposite position is any saner because Veeky Forums told you so
My first racialist can't be this adorable!
I am racist because I work in Compton. I see that blacks are fundamentally different every single day. I guarantee I have more real life experience with black people than any white liberal. And yet I see that in no discernible way is color simply skin deep, it seems to be a change in how the brain is structured as well.
>written by and for white westerners
Which is why Jews and Asians consistently score higher in IQ tests than white westerners?