How did he go from deleuze and guattari inspired techno accelerationist cyperpunk dytopianism to posting...

He realized that gene hoarding could only be corrected via mass rape at around the same time he started a family. Couldn't cope.

He was deconstructing deconstruction. He feels like he successfully demonstrated that Deleuze and Guattari's obscurist, deconstructionist writing style is easily replicable and, more importantly, reads like a crazy persons ramblings. In creating a far-right counterpart to their ramblings, he has shown that their writing style isn't a methodology which leads one to truth, but is rather just that, an arbitrary writing style meant instead to confuse, which can be used to elucidate any conclusion. Furthermore, because he so successfully replicated their style, now people compare the Deleuze and Guattari style to Nick Land, not to Deleuze and Guattari. This essentially invalidates the main use of that style: to say nothing but sound smart. Now, instead of sounding like Deleuze who was a half-competent thinker and had other works that were not nearly as strange as Anti-Oedipus, you know sound like far-right reactionary thinker Nick Land. It forces thinkers on all sides of the political spectrum to actually write clearly, lest they be compared to Nick Land and the content of their thought be lost to that comparison.

He cements his position as far-right by now going on twitter and posting the_donald tier comments. These aren't far-right per se, but in the minds of the populace it establishes him as right-wing, and thus his Dark Enlightenment works, which are very clear, are cast in the not nuanced light of "reactionary" even though they are descriptive, not prescriptive essays.

It's actually pretty impressive. He forces the hand of the social-science academia elites by connecting a particularly pernicious mode of writing they often employ to something that most of them hate.

outsideness

@MAGA_PEPE

twitter.com/outsideness

Why is most of what he says incomprehensible? And then I see people reply to him and I'm even more confused.

so he dedicated his entire life to becoming a meme strawman to piss off left wing academics is what you're saying

He died for our writing style

Any links suggesting this is his actual position?

Amphetamine.

Somewhat, but it was mostly the amphetamine.

>now people compare the Deleuze and Guattari style to Nick Land, not to Deleuze and Guattari.

If by people you mean a very small minority of mostly blog-based internet intellectuals, sure. If you mean people as in the people who work in philosophy departments, no.

Amphetamine.

You underestimate how the tide will turn in academia and how great Land’s influence will be to the new philosophers

What does he say?

Land deals with esthetics, not with philosophy

elaborate? I'm not who you replied to just curious on about this statement. I haven't read Land but I was considering getting a hold of some of his writing

If I ever get famous through my writing i'm staying off social media. Imagine someone like Proust posting a corny cat meme. It would destroy their legacy.

capital needs high octane biofuel

Attached: raindrop.jpg (480x360, 11K)

memes

>Truth
>Essentialisms
To make a narrative is to make a point, brainlet. If by truth you mean absolutist views of reality (actually false), i agree with you.
The left-right dichotomy is retarded to start with. As if they were schools of thought. Usually the identification with left-right is post hoc.

Attached: 1505051008070.jpg (634x1080, 109K)

cambridge analystics

Fanged Noumena was put together by Ray Brassier, who is part of the only contemporary philosolocal movement anyone will be talking about 50 years from now.
My bet is that in 30 years, once Nick is dead and Twitter is bankrupt, there's going to be a bullrun. We're still early adopters

Attached: 1485675545244.png (680x671, 322K)

Brassier is a turboretard and hopefully will fade into irrelevance in the next 30 years.

What did this Brassier guy do? Whats his main thesis?

amphetamine would do the exact opposite of what you're saying it did. Sounds like benzo or SSRI tier dullness.

He's somewhat of a "metaphysical realist" and basically posits a negative thesis along the lines of arguing against Kant and post-Kantian philosophers (e.g Heidegger). We can aggregate said philosophies under a large packet of "correlationist" thought, meaning that Kant and others believed we only ever have access to the correlation of thinking with being and not to either of those in separation.

The reason people believe philosophers like Brassier are going to be the only relevant thing years from now is because they allegedly match their thought (and hence their criticism of correlationist philosophy) to developments in neuroscience and biological neural networks. In this manner he draws a lot from less meme-ish philosophers like Churchland and Metzinger. To be honest, his hatred of the blog-posting model as something unfitting for philosophical posture and his general French asshole attitude just screams 'more of the same' to me.

>his general French asshole attitude
I never saw anything special in his videos, what are you referring to

his early stuff reads like the stuff i'd think about when i was doing ketamine everyday

A man of god

He's only pro-Trump insofar as it all contributes to greater societal disintegration. Have you guys read any of his stuff? It all ties rather neatly into his greater philosophy. Land wants to see a great 'crackup'. Centralization is his enemy. His Cyberpunk is one of the delegitimized state being replaced by competing non-state entities. Can anyone honestly say that contemporary politics aren't contributing to this? Whether you believe Trump is a moron or that his enemies are lying elites, things get called into question, and the more things get called into question, the more things fall apart.

Is this what gr8-b8-m8-Dimensional chess feels like?

Attached: 28378290_1825597520806782_2945287998348484639_n.jpg (720x579, 22K)

Nigger how has Deleuze anything to do with deconstruction, that's Derrida and Heidegger. Petersonfags I swear.

Deleuze says that the purpose of his philosophy is to invert what he views as the privilege of identity over difference that permeates Western ideas. Deconstruction first belongs to Heidegger, who simply used it to speak about tearing down Western biases. Derrida’s use has specifically to do with deconstruction of language/text as an idea, in other words it is a specific version of Heideiggers Deconstruction. It’s pretty clear that by investing the typical Western “privileging” that Delueze is acting in a similar way, his specific implementation being the idea of the relationship between items.

>implying Land is a "far-right counterpart" to anything.
>implying Land isn't a closet Marxist Communist

laughingfascists.jpeg

>Deconstruction first belongs to Heidegger, who simply used it to speak about tearing down Western biases.

Holy shit, just stop talking.

he is just an old man having fun watching the far right wing retards dance at his tune, nothing wrong with it

Attached: maxresdefault (2).jpg (1280x720, 95K)

If the question of Being is to have its own history made transparent, then this hardened tradition must be loosened up, and the concealments which it has brought about dissolved. We understand this task as one in which by taking the question of Being as our clue we are to destroy the traditional content of ancient ontology until we arrive at those primordial experiences in which we achieved our first ways of determining the nature of Being—the ways which have guided us ever since. (Being and Time, p. 44)

oh how the mighty (or at least intellectually rigorous) have fallen. Sad.

>he did it all for the dialectic
based

Deleuze saw deconstruction as working on texts and saw himself as naively working with an Outside in which texts are just flows of words connected to other non-textual flows, meaning (or sense rather) being the result of these interactions. Whether this makes a difference or not, it is at least an attempt to move past a notion of deconstruction that can include almost everyone after Nietzsche.

Which is not nearly the same as what you said fagtron.

heavy use of drugs
also deleuze was a crypto-fascist anyway

I’m curious, what is it specifically that you think I misrepresented about Heidegger’s statement

What exactly does this guy stand for? Glancing at his Twitter he just seems like someone who recycles alt-right talking points but with extra thesaurus abuse.

does he follow armond white

Cave Twitter is for autists - and not the good kind

>Glancing at his Twitter he just seems like someone who recycles alt-right talking points but with extra thesaurus abuse.

That's because that's precisely what he is. The right-wing don't come up with anything new for a reason. They are reactionary.

garbage time is running out, l*ftists

Attached: nick.png (591x289, 29K)

big if true

Attached: download.jpg (269x187, 12K)

He grew up

Attached: future.png (720x775, 957K)

Will this century's right-wing be Landian or he's just a meme that will die as soon as possible?

>The right-wing don't come up with anything new for a reason.
Isn't the same with the left tho? What new ideas the left-wing has brought in the last three decades?

Killing all the white people

Thats actually brilliant

He just retweeted Sargon of Akkad lol