This board gives a lot of attention to Nick Land, and to some extent the mad Persian Reza Negarestani...

Honestly? they pale in comparison, It's shockingly clear Land was the main architect behind Ccru.

nah i havent.

CCRU - Cucks Can't Read Us

they seemed to nail how technology would affect the mind.

>This board gives a lot of attention to Nick Land

a couple of shit-posters continuously start obnoxious land threads.

what is hyperstition? how do i into Ccru?

I have bought it, read only a bit of it. I was hoping for something more immediatly coherent, the fact it's split up in a number of chapters each "micro-essaying" a director or writer makes it more dispersive than I want it to be. But that's okay, what I read is still good.

Hyperstition=Meme magic

From my understanding, it's a fiction willed into existence by sheer strength of belief. Basically, an occultic interpretation of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Science fiction is rife with examples; people often praise the prescience of Gibson for seeming to anticipate cyberspace, but what if it wasn't wholly prescience? What if, in committing that idea to paper and managing to get it published, Gibson effectively incubated it into the collective consciousness?

hyperstition also involves the aspects of the market (hype) and lovecraft's cosmic horror (official ccru-glossary defines hyperstition as 'a call to the old ones'.)
A very good example is John Carpenter's movie 'In the Mouth of Madness', an actual top 9 list of hyperstitional culture can be found here: hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/003451.html

always felt like CCRU is little more than rehashed J.G Ballard farts, is this intuition correct

Its more like rehashed Debord (before he murdered his friend).

Isn't that essentially the same thing as when Alan Moore talks about magicking things over the border between fiction and reality? The cameras on street corners prefigured by V, etc? Only he goes for occult/humanities rather than occult/STEM

Debord was never found guilty of that murder, nor was he ever even charged by the police. He won several libel suits against tabloids who accused him of the murder.

From what I've read, it seems Lebovici was probably killed for his political opinions and support of a bank robber.

Moore's understanding of the "occult/humanities" is symbolic at best.

nick land threads are honestly some of the best discussion on this board and usually summon girardfag. fuck off

I literally can't find a pirated ebook copy of Fanged Noumena

>I literally can't find a pirated ebook copy of Fanged Noumena

google "fanged noumena pdf", 2nd link?

I'm not sure I see the connection, though I love Ballard and have taken an interest in Land and his ilk. Is this just blind intuition or is it based on anything more?

Funny, I have read Nihil Unbound and had no idea Brassier was into this stuff (makes sense though).

But the actual reason this is funny is that Brassier apparently hates "blog people", for he is credited with saying (in Wikipedia, even!): "I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with Deleuze’s remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity.". He is quoted as saying that of "speculative realism" which is the very philosophy people ascribe him to.

I'm not gonna pretend I'm smart here as well, Brassier's Nihil Unbound was an awful read for me. I thought it was unnecessarily "Laruelle-esque" and complex, ripe with the most difficult language he could make up at the time. He also explains excerpts of works from Badiou and Meillassoux making them seem more complicated than the authors themselves ever could. That said, I did manage to absorb something from him, just strongly disagree with his stance on the "internet blogging" thing, as sometimes (and to some people) you just can't go all the way down into heavy transcendental philosophy in order to combat their stupidity.

I can't shake the feeling philosophers hate the internet because they can't control the narrative, I couldn't imagine spending your life learning philosophy and then have a bunch of non-professionally trained internet bloggers usurping you and achieving influence and success you couldn't have imagined.

He studied under Land and cites him as an influence though, no? What does Ray think of Nick's blogging?

He probably thinks it's "problematic."

What makes you say that?

I don't know, but Brassier has recently spoke positively on Land calling his earlier work massively underrated.

He's very progressive.

Is there a suggested reading order for all of this? A book chart maybe?
All I know about Land and his I'll comes from memes and now I'm legit interested.

Post or Pre Undead Amphetamine God?

Or Both?

Booooooooooooth

>Pre Undead Amphetamine God
Ccru: Writings 1997-2003 > Fanged Noumena

>Post Undead Amphetamine God
hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/ > oldnicksite.wordpress.com > ufblog.net/ > xenosystems.net/

A lot of people wrongly assume he has disowned or denounced his "Pre Undead Amphetamine God" stuff or that there's no consistent continuity.

There's also a bunch of theory and speculation of what he's doing in Shanghai, the press seem to believe him and Moldbug are directing Bannon, or that he's for the Chinese Government developing Psyops shit.

A problem with the later "Post Undead Amphetamine God" stuff is it isn't categorized, formatted and contains a lot of junk like "Twitter cuts". Land really isn't interested developing a following or Landian Canon and it shows.

Ok fám I have to admit it: I'm not sure I understand accelerationism. It's 2deep4me. That said, please let me know if at least I'm in the same ballpark:
Accelerationism concerns itself with the idea of capitalism (or capital itself?) as an historical entity/force, independent of, hostile to and overcoming of humanity. But it is not a political or economic idea in any conventional term as it is largely beyond our grasp, all that can be done is gear our systems to help 'it' grow. But then there's left acceleration, which wants to hasten capital in order for the system to rip itself apart as per Marx's predictions and there's right acceleration, which wants Fully Automated Transhumanist Capitalism.

If the above definition is even remotely close I have some questions:
Do accelerationists care at all about the nature of Man, Nature, God, and so on? Ethics?
Is accelerationism a cult of entropy?
Is accelerationism a very elaborate trolling operation?
Besides Capital, are there other "beasts" out there?
Is there a relationship with neoreaction at all? Is it paradoxical?

pls help me understand

Follow up: disregard my original post, apparently Nick Land is an ecofascist. I endorse him 100%

Good thread

Accelerationism can be incredibly simple or next to impossible to understand, It has many applicable uses, for instance instead of requiring your opponent to play by their own rulebook (the most common political debate tactic) you agree, amplify and accelerate to absurd degrees, demand they play with your poeman, always respond by suggesting twice as much stupid as the progressive libtards.

Another completely unrelated example is aggressive re-investing, commercialization of tech to fund more R&D, Land wants a uncompensated cybernetic runaway etc.

>questions

Yes.

Another interesting example/usage of Accelerationism is the promotion and usage of Florilegiums and Anthology's, strip out all the unnecessary fluff that plagues Philosophy and politics and condense it into a easily consumed energy drink.

I suspect this is where "twitter cuts" come from.

>Is there a relationship with neoreaction at all?

Land:

>Neoreaction is Accelerationism with a flat tire. Described less figuratively, it is the recognition that the acceleration trend is historically compensated. Beside the speed machine, or industrial capitalism, there is an ever more perfectly weighted decelerator, which gradually drains techno-economic momentum into its own expansion, as it returns dynamic process to meta-stasis. Comically, the fabrication of this braking mechanism is proclaimed as progress. It is the Great Work of the Left. Neoreaction arises through naming it (without excessive affection) as the Cathedral.

>Comically, the fabrication of this braking mechanism is proclaimed as progress. It is the Great Work of the Left. Neoreaction arises through naming it (without excessive affection) as the Cathedral.
Comically wrong.

The "Cathedral" Is way more nuanced, the Left-Marxist equivalent of the "Cathedral" Is the "Spectacle", this statement is like saying "the Spectacle is cable television".

You don't think leftism is decelerationist?

>Beside the speed machine, or industrial capitalism, there is an ever more perfectly weighted decelerator, which gradually drains techno-economic momentum into its own expansion, as it returns dynamic process to meta-stasis.
The engine of that speed machine is industrial production itself. The Left never offers a comprehensive critique of the entire system of production, only whom the profits go to and how. Whereas in capitalism Capital is shiny and streamlined, in socialism it's fuzzy and scattered, but still present.

Left-industrial society is still accelerating, only at a slower RATE....

lmao

I tried reading "more brilliant than the sun" by kodowo eshun a while ago and had to drop it after skipping through. It wasn't super complex or anything but this whole hyper-"rhizomatic" 90s style is just incredibly obnoxious to read and it hasn't aged well at all. Like, a lot of Lands older stuff is straight up bordering on being gibberish (probably intentionally so, of course) and whatever brilliant thought is buried in there, you have to extract from layers and layers of bastardized complex french theory

>The Left never offers a comprehensive critique of the entire system of production, only whom the profits go to and how

What? Have you ever read Capital Part 1? Marx was basically the first person to formalize and analyze the reproduction of capital. Even if you want to be all reductionist, you could say that, of course it's about tracking the profit, since the way profit is re-invested into production is literally what capitalism is and what seperates it from pre-capitalist production.

And to add, many theoretical marxists would argue that there has never been a (modern) non-capitalist leftist system so of course any left-industrial society that still clings to capitalism is going to be accelerating. Is this supposed to be some kind of brain-shattering insight for leftists? The frankfurt guys figured this shit out 50 or 60 years ago.

Most Marxists are Orthodox Marxists, Das Kapital is the equivalent of the Bible, they believe Marx is infallible and timeless.

Neo/Post-Marxism (Frankfurt School) Is incredibly niche among Marxists and almost exclusively academic.

Obviously. That's why people like Adorno and Zizek were and are perpetually depressed. But this is a thread about CCRU, which is about as niche non-approachable as theory can get. So if someone like Land critiques the left from such an abstract standpoint, we ought to counter with the best theory we can find, no? Otherwise we are just shitting on stupid people, which is fun but not particularily productive.

Comically wrong.

Are these guys like even more contradictory versions of post1950 french 'philosophy'? They should call themselves Sokal's Slayers or something.

>fiction willed into existence

you know it's just Solipsism 101 and these people have failed it? It's like when trannies talk about their mental landscape reflecting a tangible reality?

>anticipate cyberspace

It's not like arpanet logically developed into internet or anything, Gibson meme'd it into ex1stenze!

>Thinks hard about keyboard
>Keyboard materializes out of thin air
>Writes thesis

What? you can't criticize Landianism from a Post-Modern or Marxist point of view, that's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the face to prove your toes wrong.

>It's like when trannies talk about their mental landscape reflecting a tangible reality?

And yet: google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/well/family/raising-a-transgender-child.amp.html

...

>publishing a propaganda piece makes biological fact into something else

So he used to be a marxist, half of his terminology is borrowed or inspired by marxists, he rambles about capital all day but god forbid there is a marxist critique of him?

That's like a marxist saying you can't have a Hegelian critique of Marx because Marx build on Hegel and went in a different direction.

can someone explain what this stuff is? it's like lovecraft sci fi fan fic by good writers or what? never read anything by these people and dont even know what ccru stands for. if i dont like hp will i not like it?

>missing my point this widely

propaganda piece is not a tangible reality no matter which way you spin it, though.

calling the lamb a lion does not meme it into reality.

Pls respond to questions

Not in the sense that it alters biology directly, but it does contribute to a 'discourse' which has material implications, including the development and refinement of medical technology to accommodate this novel 'understanding' of gender.

Very crudely, as I'm on my phone: Land, as I see it, is writing about the entanglement of desire and technology, and sees the technological as the primary mover of history, such that it fussy makes possible, then begins to determine, our desires.

/pol/ literally memed Donald Trump into the White House. Don't underestimate hyperstition.

trips of fucking truth

anyone read land's recent cosmic horror fiction works (like Phyl-Undhu or Chasm) and got any opinions on them?

I'd like to but apparently they're only available on e-readers.

He won because he appealed to the working class, /pol/'s autism was a hindrance to Trump's campaign if anything

The democrats disagree with you.

The democrats are fucking idiots, so who cares. In all fairness "The democrats think this" is a pretty strong argument to not think that.

No, old folk were responsible for Trump, just like Brexit.

>Do accelerationists care at all about the nature of Man, Nature, God, and so on? Ethics?

The very idea here is that you can break down humans to basic units of competition and cooperation, and in this scenario society behaves like a classic malthusian trap, only that it's not a matter purely of agricultural relationships but also cultural relationships. The TL;DR of the very long story is that humanity and our ideologies all work together in a "race to the bottom" statistical mechanism which leaves every single individual worse off than before starting, but empowers a collective "something" which, for lack of a better word, and in spite of not being religious, accelerationists refer to in cosmic horror terms. Both the recent rise of populism and the increase in refugee-positive policies in Europe, although opposite to each other, are examples of this race to the bottom mechanism. So, to finally answer your question, I think they care about it, but they believe it is made irrelevant by the unrelenting forces of capitalism (that is strictly NOT man made, but something which man is subject to in their views).

>Is accelerationism a cult of entropy?

That's a good definition I suppose. Some less pessimistic people believe we can concoct A.I to become humanity's personal autocrat and rule over our game theory instincts (see last question), effectively forcing human nature and ethics to become relevant above the capitalism/blind idiot god that leads us into being fucked. Of course these particular people would not fit into a cult of entropy because they believe it can be reversed to begin with, whereas entropy deals strictly with the irreversibility of processes.

>Is accelerationism a very elaborate trolling operation?

If anyone is trolling here, that would be Moloch/capitalism/nature itself. These guys are very serious on their claims to humanity holding their best interests in a lower priority than following some "primordial drive" to make everything worse for every human individual. And honestly, it makes sense at times.

>Besides Capital, are there other "beasts" out there?

In my understanding, whatever beast you try to name, is actually the same beast with many names or heads that is Capital and used to be [insert historical force driving humans to shit].

>Is there a relationship with neoreaction at all? Is it paradoxical?

If you go full reductionist like I did and put the claim that we are all mindlessly engaging in race to the bottom statistics that go against our best interests, and even if we tried to do good,competition would erase us from the pool anyway, it is a sound argument that someone or something with absolute power could stand up and see "above individual competition interests" and more or less control the behavior of the system in order to promote these interests. In this manner NRx strikes as a Hobbian appeal to creating a Leviathan that can fend off the Capital. Though they don't believe it works in the end...

the only thing more disgraceful than clinton's campaign was the apologists afterward. it's blatantly obvious that she lost because he shamelessly ignored the white working class, but admitting even the smallest mistake in her campaign strategy would be to give up the notion that trump only got elected because of """"racism"""".

Lol

Oh my fucking god. It makes sense to me now. Capitalism is a god in the pre-Christian sense and it fulfills all our desires through the power of technology so long as we support its growth by consumption and entrepenaurship.

>Basic bitch critical theory
Step it up senpai

What? Who else theorized that?

Not sure if sarcasm there, but yeah, that's how some people unironically go by it. Other ones, and I think Land is included (note "determining our desires" from the post you replied to), go by it from the most Lovecraftian angle possible: Capitalism is part of something which is far from our grasp and only barely (if only) acknowledges our presence. We shall pass, it shall not, and something or someone else will string along carrying its bidding.

>Nick Land fucked this
He truly is nonhuman.

You aren't wrong but neither is If you haven't read the recently leaked Shareblue/Correct the Record papers they literally labelled /pol/ as a massive asset for Trump, they spent $1M trying to influence social media and got absolutely destroyed by the "Alt-right". They've further allocated $40M to control the damage and win back the house in 2018.

Pic related.

There is no picture in your post

Landianism is essentially Economic Gnosticism, Socialism/Capitalism are the Demiurge, whatever comes after is the Monad.

Didn't he fuck her like 30 years ago? what did she look like back then?

hey, HBD means we don't get the luxury of aesthetic standards when it comes to mating. To achieve a high IQ population, we have to fuck ugly people.

What should I read to work my way up to Ccru? Essential preliminary readings + essential Ccru, give it to me straight.

Ccru works with two core lineages

Kant > Schopenhauer
And
Spinoza > Deleuze

Reading Nietzsche would also help but that's more Land specific.

Anyone explain wtf the numogram is?

Now, how to understand Deleuze?

I could eventually grok Kant and Spinoza by spending a lot of time with secondary literature, but it never did for Deleuze. I even tried to follow a few of the "how to understand Deleuze" plans I found online, and they simply don't work.

Some of them basically tell you to just read like it is poetry without understanding. Some say to just read his work on Spinoza and Nietzsche, or to read some particular articles in "Desert Islands", etc.

None of these plans, for example, tell me how to learn the basics of psychoanalysis and literary theory that I need to understand the jargon in C&S.

If you understand Deleuze you don't understand him at all, that's the catch

Solo Deleuze is mostly "just" very complex and technical metaphysics. If you can get through the gritty details of Kant & Spinoza, you should be able to get through Difference & Repetition.

Now, D&G on the other hand is a loot more weird. If someone tells me they understand what every paragraph of thousand plateaus is trying to say, I won't believe them. People like Land clearly are very influenced by their style where a lot of it is riding the line between technical philosophy and some kind of weird literary perfomative art.

walter benjamin

Link plox

Mark Fisher died last month btw

Dude got me into about half of my phil lit and music touchstones. I really hope he gets more credit in the future