New Nick Land essay on Jacobin - #3

>At the demographic level, modernity selects systematically against modern populations. The people it prefers, it consumes. Without gross exaggeration, this endogenous tendency can be seen as an existential risk to the modern world.

The IQ shredder idea is interesting as fuck desu. By that logic, will populations that actively engage in a sort of intelligence dysgenics such as Muslim society ultimately become the norm because they don't end up tfw too intelligent to breed in the long run?

Could it be that civilisation ultimately is a more sustainable enterprise with a solid average 85 IQ? Are dimwitted people the future?

it's one of his more straight forward writings lately.

is he alright?

>tackle the queer issue
testing that antifragility i see

I fuck it up every time.

Is that sentence hard for you to understand or something?

No, the strategy by Land is to liquidate humanity before the smart people are used up.

damn

not scribbling

If you're not familiar with his writings, his endgoal is basically to accelerate capital so the singularity comes and AI eventually replaces us.

How does the Flynn-effect fit into the IQ shredder hypothesis?

I've heard that the Flynn effect is basically bullshit but I don't have the sources on me right now.

easy peasy

"IQ shredder" means the people (i.e., their fertility) is being shredded, not IQ.

Yes but if the high IQ people are getting shredded wouldn't that mean a lowering of average IQ throughout the world?

Or is this IQ shredder effect recent enough to not have had that effect yet?

Land takes the position that IQ is hereditary.

I think that's mostly bullshit though, seems fairly clear it is a cultural effect of education and income, which of course is tied to racial divisions.

But the IQ Shredder he is talking about isn't just a 'White Problem'. As immigrants move to the city and normalize their culture within it, moving up the socio-economic ladder, they'll suffer the same effect. Having children in the city is an economic cost, unlike having children in an agrarian society where each child makes the family more prosperous.

Seems silly to stop at IQ though. Modern Cities are race shredders, religion shredders, culture shredders. Anything ethnic, local, or culturally specific is chewed up inside a city, slowly transformed into it's cosmopolitan whole.

Land seemed to get this in Meltdown: "Nothing human makes it out of the near-future." As a intermediary step, you might say 'Nothing folk makes it out of the City'.

From my pseudo-leftist position, I see this Shredding as a good thing. Modernity tends towards a mono-culture, eliminating the violent effects of religious and ethnic difference. If the Left-Accelerationist crowd is serious about an end of 'Folk Politics' then I think they have to embrace inter-racial, inter-culture, inter-gender mixing and recombination. Of course this will be violent. There will be riots and terrorism and all of those outbursts. But what other path forward is there to reconciling 'irrational' difference among humans?

there was recently a paper that went around all the tech forums (probably not /g/ tho since they're just a collective of pc technicians working on building their latest gaming rig) that talked about how when males have children later in life the children have higher iq, so the way urban life forces people to wait to have kids actually improves the iq of the population, so all the whining about dysgenic effects of capitalism "irresponsible poor people keep popping out kids while the bourgeois have one or two if at all" well it turns out that the one or two they have end up with higher iq and as their parents are later in life they have more economic and cultural resources to invest in the kid thus resulting an even higher level of human potential, seems like the easiest way to amass a following on the internet is to be a pseudo-academic doomsayer

Not sure this is the best place to ask this, but is the Unconditional Acceleration #Rhettwitter fascination with Aleksander Dugin a serious thing or are they just memeing? Is Dugin just a crack-post political mystic or is there something worthwhile in his thought as it relates to Accelerationism?

That depends on what percentile is being "shredded". If it's the far end of a long tail then average IQ could very well be rising anyway.

Capital is *already* accelerating according to him. And Land's notion of "machinic desire" can be interpreted AI as *already* replacing us. It is not a question of when, but how fast. And he doesn't make a fine delineation between capital and AI either. It's like a process that slowly melds into the another. The "singularity" folks are missing the point. They're the flying car crowd. By defining the singularity as some "event" they miss it happening, like missing the novelty of commerialized airlines, driverless cars, and drones while still expecting flying cars. Which among those is more capital and intelligence intensive after all?

>ISIS are negentropic and might save the human race
It just might be the case.

Dugin is an attempt by Russia to come up with some kind of ideology to fill the void left by Marxism. I read some of the "The Fourth Political Theory" or whatever. It was shit. It read like a talk given by Zizek. Basically, pointless "observations" with random name droppings mixed in. Seriously, read it. It's not good.

Yeah, I caught that headline.

I don't think Nick Land's point is totally off base here though. How many children are these older high IQ men actually having? Are they even replacing 2 children per couple?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
There is a pretty clear negative trend between GDP (which I'm assuming will also correlate with education levels and IQ). You might raise a smarter child if you have better schools, more money, a good job, a stable western capitalist market, but you won't have many of those children.

I'm not at all concerned with the 'white genocide' aspect of this problem, rather if the goal of Neoliberal Capitalism is for 'a rising tide to raise all ships', then where do the children of the future come from? Under the Neoliberal dream where all countries achieve western levels of education and economic prosperity, who actually has time and money to raise 3+ children? Let alone the 5, 6, 7, etc children that were so common to pre-industrial era of agrarian farming.

My cynical answer to this is that the Neoliberal Dream of 'a rising tide raising all ships' is just fundamentally impossible. Capitalism has no intention of creating stable western capitalist living conditions across the globe. It needs the impovershed country side and 3rd world nations to feed upon. It needs the immigrants and their giant families, to work the rice and coffee plantations, it needs those workers to toil in clothing sweatshops 16 hours a day. Without the exploitation of the 3rd world, the western late-capitalist model of living is just unsustainable. Cities consume much more than they produce.

>how could movements of deterritorialization and processes of deterritorialization not be relative, always connected, caught up in one another? the orchid deterritorializes by forming an image, a tracing of a wasp; but the wasp reterritorializes on that image. the wasp is nevertheless deterritorialized, becoming a piece in the orchid's reproductive apparatus. but it reterritorializes the orchid by transporting its pollen. wasp and orchid, as heterogenous elements, form a rhizome.

>it could be said that the orchid imitates the wasp, reproducing its image in a signifying fashion (mimesis, mimicry, lure, etc). but this is true only on the level of the strata - a parallelism between two strata such that a plant organization on one imitates an animal organization on the other. at the same time, something else entirely is going on: not imitation at all but a capture of code, surplus value of code, an increase in valence, a veritable becoming, a becoming-wasp of the orchid and a becoming-orchid of the wasp.

>each of these becomings brings about the deterritorialization of one term and the deterritorialization of the other; the two becomings interlink and form relays in a circulation of intensities pushing the deterritorialization ever further. there is neither imitation nor resemblance, only an exploding of two heterogenous series on the line of flight composed by a common rhizome that can no longer be attributed to or subjugated by anything signifying

Thread got me interested in the idea of airlines and airports like orchids and wasps (not quite the same, of course, but Land does things to D&G).

dugin feels like a rephrasing of russian imperialist thought.

Children won't be grown in women in the future, and if they're not, the last link to the biological family disappears.

It's a common, obvious sci-fi scenario: once you get artificial wombs, the state gets a monopoly on the production of people. They'll be raised artificially and educated as atomized individuals without family ties. There will be government regulation of population to keep replacement.

I wonder if the reason Land reduces everything to immanence is because the method of consumption of bodies that capitalism undertakes in order to occupy the point of view of the other means that the future AI will be an amalgamation of everything that we have lost. Our displaced future will be transformed into an embryonic cthulu-like being of pure primordial potentiality. Deleuzanism abstracts away from that and renders it sterile through metaphor. Land re-purposes D&G into horror but stops right before declaring it, because he doesn't posit the transcendent, instead relegating it to the theory-fiction part of his oeuvre. In the back of our minds, it's "just" a literary device. Cannibal metaphysics makes it real. The question of what drove the Amerindians to take care of their captives then ritually kill and eat (sound familiar?) them cannot just be mere social convention, but motivated by an underlying difference in metaphysical perspective.

Cannibal Metaphysics is a good book. I hope he finishes Anti-Narcissus someday. The Carnosphere is a rather dark version of the Mechanosphere. The infinite creativity of Deleuze can get negated by a Cormac McCarthy view of things. Or others.

>Then I realized part of their cunning. They would never be willing to change their stand, and their plans were all laid; they had stigmatized me as a madman. In future when I was eaten, not only would there be no trouble, but people would probably be grateful to them. When our tenant spoke of the villagers eating a bad character, it was exactly the same device. This is their old trick.

marxists.org/archive/lu-xun/1918/04/x01.htm

>tfw even this is an incredibly optimistic scenario and we will more than likely get mass surrogacy where developing world wombs are invaded through the process of an economic transaction

The real irony is that one kind of cannibalism was traded for another. Cannibalism is conserved. At least in filial cannibalism, one isn't consumed alone. And ofc in romantic cannibalism, the process is undertaken with ecstasy.

>Children won't be grown in women in the future, and if they're not, the last link to the biological family disappears.

Is this much different than the current trend of getting surrogate mothers from china and india? I don't mean to downplay the technology of artificial wombs, it will revolutionize things, but I don't know that it changes things as radically as it might seem.

For starters, you still need people to care for a child, unless we've got Artificial Parents in the form of Robot AI, then I think the situation remains the same. It is an economic burden to have children, the physical burden of a baby in your womb is only one part of that economic burden in the form of 9 months pregnancy and some maternity/paternity leave. The big cost is 20+ years of food, healthcare, clothes, entertainment, education and all of the time spent procuring these things for your child.

I think State-run Baby Farms complete with either robot parents or civil servant 'caretakers' employed by the government is pretty fucking fantastic, Distant science fiction at best. It is soooooo much cheaper to just 'import' illegal immigrants and their big families to work the tomato fields. I just don't yet see the economic incentive to switch to artificial wombs, unless those 3rd world labor pools dry up.

The ethics are nicer, you avoid exploitation of the 3rd world, for admittedly dubious ethics of industrial scale artificial womb farms, but financially it's just an out of control 'solution'.

I do hope that the next iteration of Peterson will not be required to ask us to, along with sorting ourselves out, using speech properly and cleaning our rooms, also kindly stop devouring human flesh, be it our own or that which belongs to others. Beyond a certain horizon the bloom really does start to come off the rose on the schizophrenic cannibalization of the sun and all that it shines upon.

Of course we will be devoured by memes before that happens. Which of course was hinted at by the Matrix. What else could they possibly have been sustaining themselves on in those pink gelatin baths? It's better not to ask.

He would rather ask us to devour the flesh of Christ. Rather than continuing the cycle of cannibalism we merely need to feast on his flesh and blood. Cannibalism is conserved.

*Cannibalism* and Schizophrenia would be a book worth reading. I wonder if that ever crossed our man's mind for a title.

Pic related &c. Of course it can be. But atheism in this mode is 2 edgy 4 me.

Cannibalism is conserved. But wouldn't even Georges Bataille say that mere conservation ultimately falls short of the mark? The problem is either that there are too many cannibals or too many mediocre and guilt-ridden cannibals *in denial.* Much as Nietzsche would have understood, I guess.

Even Hannibal Lecter at least had enough of a sense of style to attract Anthony Hopkins.

Is it really that big of a deal to have a population decline? Even if high-IQ people are disproportionately affected, we will probably be able to counteract the effect with embryo selection before too long. As it is, most advanced capitalist countries are overpopulated and could stand for a reduction in population density - the problem is that doing so will make it impossible to pay for elder care.

So, in a nutshell, Nick Land is trying to tell everyone that the Matrix movies were a warning?

Nick and the Wachowskis tapped into the same underground veins that others before them had tapped into as well. This was a nice shout-out in that film.

Cannibalism is very relevant to schizophrenia. After all, to consume another's body is to inhabit their point of view. Never mind about "minds", because their perspective is a function of their body. It's very different (and Wark points this out) to Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction. So the friend is defined by shared enemies and vice versa. Therefore eliminating the enemy leads to the uncertainty regarding the status of one's friends, potentially renewing conflict. Thus the raison d'etre of liberal democracy.

As tempting as it is to eliminate this framework where mutually irreconcilable perspectives are forced into war by eliminating the enemy once and for all, it only eliminates the enemy while resulting in ontological uncertainty. So in this unstable system we are tempted either by genocide or by liberal democracy. Choose one! Total destruction followed by self destruction or protracted cold war and entropic aesthetic deterioration (democratic "politics" is very unstylish).

But cannibalism closes the circle. The enemy is subsumed into one's body. The contradiction between friend and enemy is absorbed. Cannibalism is the final form of government. Too bad "cannibalism" already defines the "act of cannibalism". But maybe the mere act of cannibalism sates the need for government.

Land turns away from this "horror", with Exit as the solution. I can't blame him. It's nice in Shanghai.

its more that the work of nick land chimes with millenials who watched the matrix when they were young and impressionable. thus "redpilled" memes and other such faggotry.

>This was a nice shout-out in that film.
>Simulations and Simulacra.jpg

Yeah, I have to disagree, it was not a nice shout out. The Matrix has confused most readers on the topic of simulation by associating it with a materialist, VR, computer apparatus. Baudrillard's Simulacra is not dependent on digital technology, Plato's Cave is 'virtual enough'. The Brain (specifically it's capabilities for Consciousness and (mis)perception) are the fundamental technology that is required.

The Matrix has mystified the problem by associating it with technological singularities. Simulation (and also accelerationism for other reasons) are not a matter of flying cars or asking 'when does capital achieve intelligence'. No bother waiting for the moment of singularity when it was already passed.
>like missing the novelty of commerialized airlines, driverless cars, and drones while still expecting flying cars.

This user gets it, but I'd make the metaphor more extreme. It's like waiting for fully immersive VR suits and sexbots while Pornography has already existed for centuries.

Nick Land is trying to tell everyone that Agent Smith is awesome and that we should pave the way for him.

You type like a fucking idiot, my man.

>After all, to consume another's body is to inhabit their point of view. Never mind about "minds", because their perspective is a function of their body.
Yes, but the body has biological needs and the mind has psychological ones. There is consumption, there is appropriation, there is mimesis. The friend/enemy distinction happens only *after* the mimetic process plays all the way through to its third act. There's an inherent logic in simulation that is triangular rather than bipolar and unfolds in time. By the time that There Can Only Be One that's true...but there's always a precedent for this injunction. So crisis-politics and so on basically exist in a topsy-turvy world that, for what it's worth, I think is maintained through ill-understood paranoia.

Schmitt can't be argued with because if we begin from a position of emergency powers and sovereignty then absolutism and absolute distinctions are where we absolutely end up. And begin from.

>Choose one! Total destruction followed by self destruction or protracted cold war and entropic aesthetic deterioration (democratic "politics" is very unstylish).
This is why *tragedy* actually serves a civilizational function, I would say. See the shit on stage before it happens in reality, maybe. In theory this can and should be a task for cinema...

Anyways, that's all the memefagging I'll do in this thread. If I want to talk about the boy I'll make a separate thread for it. Let's stay with Land stuff.
>he said to himself, as if everyone else wasn't already perfectly aware of this
>and so on and so on *sniff*

>But cannibalism closes the circle. The enemy is subsumed into one's body. The contradiction between friend and enemy is absorbed. Cannibalism is the final form of government. Too bad "cannibalism" already defines the "act of cannibalism". But maybe the mere act of cannibalism sates the need for government.
Probably. Harsh lesson tho. Would be nice if we didn't always have to learn these things the hard way.

>Land turns away from this "horror", with Exit as the solution. I can't blame him. It's nice in Shanghai.
Yeah.

>The Matrix has mystified the problem by associating it with technological singularities. Simulation (and also accelerationism for other reasons) are not a matter of flying cars or asking 'when does capital achieve intelligence'. No bother waiting for the moment of singularity when it was already passed.
True.

I've thought about this too. There's left-cyberpunk with the heroes as neurotic outsiders and right-cyberpunk where the heroes are fighting terrorists. Motoko Kusanagi is Agent Smith with a conscience.

There's a lot of good discussion on his blog's comment section about this piece.
xenosystems.net/jacobite-3/#comments
I especially like this:
>If radically decoded Internet identity is the extrapolation of the norms of urban existence,
Wouldn’t that imply fighting the cities is yesterday’s battle? Sure, the cities are still hotbeds of these norms.
But seeing how communication, meeting up, association, especially by the younger generations, is mediated by applications on the Internet, the norms of the global city are spreading without heed to geography.

>The new “Maoist” slogan would be “Burn the Internet to the ground”. Good luck with that.

Well, it's already been proven that the flynn effect has augmented only those elements of intelligence which are least correlated with G.

g is intelligence. If something isn't correlated with g it isn't intelligence.

>I think that's mostly bullshit though, seems fairly clear it is a cultural effect of education and income, which of course is tied to racial divisions.
Seems to be precisely the opposite. The average iq of Kentucky is around 98, whereas the average black iq is in the 80s. Studies show that black iq and proportion of white blood are strongly correlated.
There has been no black Wordsworth or Joyce.

I hope you're right, but nothing points that way.
>nything ethnic, local, or culturally specific is chewed up inside a city
It's chewed up everywhere. We've lost our American culture and now the foreign hordes are losing their cultures. That's how it works when there's no tradition whatever.

As I understand, g is just the most important factor in iq measurement.

g is what people intuit to be intelligence

>Seems to be precisely the opposite. The average iq of Kentucky is around 98, whereas the average black iq is in the 80s. Studies show that black iq and proportion of white blood are strongly correlated.

Let me put it another way, does Race, as genetic difference, mean anything other than historical, socio-economic division? Genetic diversity only comes through separation of populations over time and space, through historical, socio-economic conditions.In my mind, 'Black' is not a matter of skin tone, but several thousand years of economic, cultural separation.

>We've lost our American culture and now the foreign hordes are losing their cultures. That's how it works when there's no tradition whatever.

This is the kind of logic that comes out of the eth-nat and HBD sphere that I really just can't stand. What 'American Culture'? Its a 200 year old country of immigrants, it's a cluster-fuck of competing cultures. There is nothing makes America a civilization and the foreigner's just a 'horde'.

If there are genetic distinctions in IQ, that should be an alarming fact for the ethnonationalists, not a consoling one. It means that IQ is merely an evolutionary phenomenon, that cultures can gain and lose intelligence at the genetic level through mere accident of picking the wrong mate or the dna recombination process, which we don't control. If anything it means that IQ is an accidental effect of a chaotic process.

I'd expect the eth-nat crowd to want something more mythic and immutable to explain their superiority. Esoteric Hitlerism and all of that nonsense at least posists that the Hyperboreans are a distinct superior species from the Semite, who are alien, inhuman invaders. There's an ethnic ideology that you can really hold onto! No chance that fucking the wrong woman dooms your race!

And regardless whether American Culture exists or not, fuck it. Tradition is a crutch. The way forward, whether left or right, is to digest all culture and racial distinction. Mulatto, pan-racial, pan-religion, pan-culture here we come.

IQ is the best measurement we have of g, which is general intelligence, or sum intelligence, or what is colloquially known as intelligence.

Try to sound it out.

the original settlers in nyc spoke dutch, but i don't see anyone complaining that the english "ruined" new york when they took over

>all
>pan-racial, pan-religion, pan-culture
That's literally never happening outside of American and Europe though, you know where Land lives, china, is currently in the process of violently kicking out all non-Chinese cultural influences.

>Wouldn’t that imply fighting the cities is yesterday’s battle?

Ruin would be a scary optional bonus boss in Accelerationist JRPG-land. The city wakes up...

if means fags who are into hero worshipping technology entrepreneurs like elon musk or jeff bezos also like semi-authoritarian oriental business centers like singapore and hongkong

>Let me put it another way, does Race, as genetic difference, mean anything other than historical, socio-economic division? Genetic diversity only comes through separation of populations over time and space, through historical, socio-economic conditions.In my mind, 'Black' is not a matter of skin tone, but several thousand years of economic, cultural separation.
And the physical difference remains, the cause is irrelevant.
>This is the kind of logic that comes out of the eth-nat and HBD sphere that I really just can't stand. What 'American Culture'? Its a 200 year old country of immigrants, it's a cluster-fuck of competing cultures. There is nothing makes America a civilization and the foreigner's just a 'horde'.
Then you must know better than Hawthorne, Henry James, HL Mencken, and all the rest. Sorry to break it to you, but your'e wrong.
>Its a 200 year old country of immigrants, it's a cluster-fuck of competing cultures
As opposed to the clusterfuck that was Britain's beginning? Or that of any other country? Nation's and cultures emerge form clusterfucks. Your melting pot platitudes don't change that.
Abe Lincoln is culturally more American than a chinaman fresh of the boat can ever be. Only a moron with no sense of history could believe otherwise.
>I'd expect the eth-nat crowd to want something more mythic and immutable to explain their superiority. Esoteric Hitlerism and all of that nonsense at least posists that the Hyperboreans are a distinct superior species from the Semite, who are alien, inhuman invaders. There's an ethnic ideology that you can really hold onto! No chance that fucking the wrong woman dooms your race!

>And regardless whether American Culture exists or not, fuck it. Tradition is a crutch. The way forward, whether left or right, is to digest all culture and racial distinction. Mulatto, pan-racial, pan-religion, pan-culture here we come.
Great, It's a shame that those idea of yours were only possible in the context of Western culture and traditions.

And I don't know where you get the moronic idea that I'm an eth nat. As I said, I hope you're right and it's a shame that nearly everything points the opposite way.

>the original settlers in nyc spoke dutch, but i don't see anyone complaining that the english "ruined" new york when they took over
From the point of view of the dutchmen who lived there, they may have. But their descendants, like teddy roosevelt, probably recognized that this was no longer a set of colonies but a nation

>And the physical difference remains, the cause is irrelevant.
If the physical difference is an evolutionary one, and not some mythological one like the Nazi's believed, it is immensely important. It means that the race can and will change. Nothing remains fixed, yesterday's races and tomorrows races are always going to be different. This should undermine all of ethnic nationalism, notions of purity and superiority. If a race has the potential to 'degenerate' in what way can it claim superiority?

>As opposed to the clusterfuck that was Britain's beginning? Or that of any other country? Nation's and cultures emerge form clusterfucks. Your melting pot platitudes don't change that.
>Abe Lincoln is culturally more American than a chinaman fresh of the boat can ever be. Only a moron with no sense of history could believe otherwise.
I feel this is proving my point, not refuting it. That 'chinaman' is going to get digested by 'American Culture' and effectively change it. The Clusterfuck is a competition that perpetually mutates a culture into something new. Abe Lincoln would not be an 'American' today, he'd be a confused asshole with no sense of the contemporary sense of 'being American'. Just like the Chinaman of your example, he would also have the chance to get chewed up, to be reformed and reform the culture too

>Great, It's a shame that those idea of yours were only possible in the context of Western culture and traditions.
This is why speaking of 'cultural traditions' is a mistake. Whatever Plato thought of his ideas, we think something else. A tradition implies stability, immutability. We have nothing of that sort, especially at today's speeds of exchange.

>And I don't know where you get the moronic idea that I'm an eth nat.
Excuse the assumption, I assume you must have some sense of national/ethnic allegiance in order to make a Civilization/Barbaric Hordes distinction.

>the original settlers in nyc spoke dutch, but i don't see anyone complaining that the english "ruined" new york when they took over

You see this in the colonial context. When the empires lost control of the colonies, there were all sorts of ethnic divisions.

I live in Missouri, in the Flint Hills there are still people who consider themselves French and refuse to pay taxes or participate in the census. They consider the US government to be 'The British Empire'. Actual France has long since forgotten about them, but I remember it was a big deal when the French Ambassador was in Kansas City. Some of the 'Frenchmen' from the Flint Hills came to see him, much to his confusion.

>If the physical difference is an evolutionary one, and not some mythological one like the Nazi's believed, it is immensely important. It means that the race can and will change. Nothing remains fixed, yesterday's races and tomorrows races are always going to be different. This should undermine all of ethnic nationalism, notions of purity and superiority. If a race has the potential to 'degenerate' in what way can it claim superiority?
What the fuck are you on about? It would take centuries to effect a desired change in a race, even with positive eugenics programs. Unless some sort of technological solution occurs, there's no reason to suppose that anything will change.
> That 'chinaman' is going to get digested by 'American Culture' and effectively change it
I see. So I only need to send an Arab to Japan and he himself is Japanese. Ingenius.
>This is why speaking of 'cultural traditions' is a mistake. Whatever Plato thought of his ideas, we think something else
Tradition does not imply perfection, merely continuity.
>A tradition implies stability, immutabilit
Not in that sense.
>Excuse the assumption, I assume you must have some sense of national/ethnic allegiance in order to make a Civilization/Barbaric Hordes distinction.
I never said anything about barbarians, but I will say you're a moron tbqh

>What the fuck are you on about? It would take centuries to effect a desired change in a race, even with positive eugenics programs. Unless some sort of technological solution occurs, there's no reason to suppose that anything will change.
Every new baby is change, ever so gradual, and we take zero efforts to control that. Race is changing every day, with no sense of purposeful direction. If you wanted race to not change, you'd need a program in place. You do not need a eugenics program to change races, on the other hand.
>I see. So I only need to send an Arab to Japan and he himself is Japanese. Ingenius.
Send enough Arabs to Japan and with enough time, they become Japanese. Isn't this how the American was invented? That only took roughly 200 years of Colonial history to invent before America was a nation. Send Nigerians to Jamaica and they become Nigerians. There is nothing permanent or universal about such categories, they are surprisingly easy to change, even with pre-industrial rates of speed and exchange. Why shouldn't we expect faster rates of racial/national mutation in the present and especially the future?
>I never said anything about barbarians, but I will say you're a moron tbqh
Ah, well I'm glad you love the foreigners and don't consider them barbarians! In the future you might avoid a distinction like 'American Culture and Foreign Hordes', it implies you see a fundamental difference between civilized and barbaric cultures. You might read some post-colonial theory so you can avoid such systemically racist jargon in the future!

>Send Nigerians to Jamaica and they become Nigerians.
whoops, I meant 'they become Jamaicans', lol

>Send enough Arabs to Japan and with enough time, they become Japanese.

Only by making the concept 'Japanese' no longer means anything at all. If Japan is entirely composed of Arabs who have made the island of Japan into Arabia 2.0, then what? Then there is no Japan.

>You might read some post-colonial theory so you can avoid such systemically racist jargon in the future!

This whole post reads like some kind of diabolical plot from /pol/ to redpill Veeky Forums through sheer ludicrousness.

>Every new baby is change, ever so gradual, and we take zero efforts to control that. Race is changing every day, with no sense of purposeful direction. If you wanted race to not change, you'd need a program in place. You do not need a eugenics program to change races, on the other hand.
You cannot just spew general propositions and pretend that you have said something about concrete circumstances. Yes, the races are changing. And for that matter, so is nearly everything. But are they changing in a way that is relevant at all to our discussion? No, they are not. imagine if, 500 years ago, someone like you had said "There's no reason to think that the Africans are different! Races are always changing!"
If that man had lived to 100, he would have seen no change whatever in the relative positions of the races. And, having told his great grandson to be alert for change, he would have died without having seen any. And then his grandson would live to 100 without noticing any change, and so on down to the present time.

According to you, we shouldn't build permanent building for fear of being too short for them in a century.
>Send enough Arabs to Japan and with enough time, they become Japanese
Yes, by assimilating to the general culture. What is your point? Send enough Arabs and there is no longer any meaning to the term japanese culture.
> Isn't this how the American was invented?
A culture was created here despite diversity, not because of it.
>. There is nothing permanent or universal about such categories, they are surprisingly easy to change
Why is this cheap skepticism the first resort of everyone with your goals?
> In the future you might avoid a distinction like 'American Culture and Foreign Hordes', it implies you see a fundamental difference between civilized and barbaric cultures.
In the future you might invest in a dictionary

>Only by making the concept 'Japanese' no longer means anything at all. If Japan is entirely composed of Arabs who have made the island of Japan into Arabia 2.0, then what? Then there is no Japan.

You say that like it's a bad thing, it's just History. Everyone came from somewhere else and probably displaced whoever was already there. Tomorrow's America will not resemble Today's America which does not resemble Abe Lincoln's America which does not resemble Cortez's America which does not resemble Moctezuma's Mexico, which wasn't even called America or even Mexico.

The idiocy of Ethno-nationalism and all other sorts of identitarian protectionism is thinking you can stop the sun from rising. Why would tomorrow's America look like today's? Why would tomorrow's 'White Race' look like today's?

Any sense of identity rooted in tradition or origin can't last. After all, American's don't consider themselves Anglo-Saxons and certainly not Saxons proper and certainly not Anglorums of Roman decent. The British come from 'germanic' Saxons, though long before a 'Germany' every existed.

These cultural changes happened on extremely short time scales, in anthropological terms. Homo Sapien is only 250,000 years old and the majority of today's European 'national identities' aren't even 500 years old.

Schism and mutation is inevitable.

>No, they are not. imagine if, 500 years ago, someone like you had said "There's no reason to think that the Africans are different! Races are always changing!"

You mistake my argument. I would say 'There is reason to think Africans are different! How could it be otherwise, and how will they not be different than yesterday or tomorrow's Africans? Will the category African even mean anything in a long enough time scale?"

My point is mutability of anything that is genetically determined. These arguments should equally apply to notions of gender and species. Millions of years ago, there was no sexual difference, just asexual creatures reproducing asexually. Even sexual difference is not a universal truth, just a historical and likely temporary distinction.

Anything determined by genetics, especially since the rise of sexual reproduction and 'intentional genetic recombination' (as opposed to accidental mutation) is determined by a specific place, a specific time, and will never be the same.

To construct eternal philosophies based on such mutating substrate is silly. The point of Accelerationist philosophy should be to start thinking philosophically beyond temporary notions of race, gender, nation, as these thing will not remain static.

This is why genetics can't be a basis for ethnic philosophy, the principle of genetic change fundamentally annihilates any sense of ethnic allegiance. If you want ethnic philosophies of nationalism or supremacy, you need mythologies of divine providence, eternal immutability.

It's not about race, it's about culture. Well-meaning leftists lack an insufficient appreciation for what is already different. It lacks respect for a natural difference that doesn't harm anyone and only makes the world picture richer for it.

>You say that like it's a bad thing, it's just History.
Isn't Derrida supposed to teach you something about putting capital letters on concepts like this?

>Any sense of identity rooted in tradition or origin can't last.
Yeah, that whole Egyptian dynastic civilization really was a flash in the pan, wasn't it. Or Chinese dynasties. Or European ones.

>Homo Sapien is only 250,000 years old and the majority of today's European 'national identities' aren't even 500 years old.
Except that nobody identifies as Homo Sapiens but they do identify as Poles, Argentinians, Indians and so on.

>Schism and mutation is inevitable.
Almost as inevitable as failure to understand Chesterton's fence.

It's not about *race,* it's about *culture.* Not everyone who doesn't want to see everything assimilated into the same is a racist. For the same reason lower prices at Wal-Mart aren't worth the loss of a hundred artisans.

If you don't want to see more people taking the red pill you have to try and avoid making less inane arguments for the blue one.

Yep, I agree. And the present "you" is not the same "you" that your parents gave birth to. In fact "you" are always changing, one day you'll change so much that "you" won't even exist, so would it really be that much of a difference if I started being "you?" Tell your gf to have dinner ready by 8.

>Yep, I agree. And the present "you" is not the same "you" that your parents gave birth to. In fact "you" are always changing, one day you'll change so much that "you" won't even exist, so would it really be that much of a difference if I started being "you?" Tell your gf to have dinner ready by 8.
I know you mean this in a silly way but, I agree with the sentiment. All sorts of traditional institutions of mariage are often founded upon a notion of eternity, usually mariage in an after life. Some Mormons believe that when they die, they and their wife will be the new Adam and Even on another planet.

Of course marriage is not eternal, only temporary and historically determined. The decline in polygamy in the modern era, and the rise of polyamory and all sorts of 'nontraditional' relationships are evidence that the definition of a sexual relationship has always been in flux and will change in the future, one way or the other.

But I don't have a gf, only my Daddy.

>It's not about race, it's about culture. Well-meaning leftists lack an insufficient appreciation for what is already different. It lacks respect for a natural difference that doesn't harm anyone and only makes the world picture richer for it.
Yes! And in the future, we can only continue to have more and more cultural difference! More cultures, 2 to replace every 1 that dies!
>Yeah, that whole Egyptian dynastic civilization really was a flash in the pan, wasn't it. Or Chinese dynasties. Or European ones.
But they are just flashes in the pan. And regardless, they weren't unchanging. Your examples are all military empires, focused on outward conquest and often slave taking and interracial marriage or at least interracial rape. The China of Emperor Qin and that of the Dowager Empress were radically different things.

>Almost as inevitable as failure to understand Chesterton's fence.
A nice sentiment for sure, but unrealistic. What historical examples do you have of a fence not being taken down? Doesn't every fence crumble eventually? Emperor Akhito of Japan is the regent of the world's oldest Monarchy and it's only 500 years old. And it really isn't a Monarchy anymore is it?

>If you don't want to see more people taking the red pill you have to try and avoid making less inane arguments for the blue one.
This is a reasonable thing to say, but I don't at all believe in the bluepill if that means Multicultural Unity, everyone just get along. The future I see is one of strife, contest, mutation and change, which is exactly how history has already played out. 'Things fall apart, the center can not hold'.

My point isn't even to say 'Oh we need to be nice to all people of all races'. That's a myth just as much as ethno-national traditionalism is a myth. Both sides fear the violence of difference and want to prevent it through either peace and love or deterrence and exclusion. Both are illusory solutions of wishful thinking.

>What historical examples do you have of a fence not being taken down?
But that's no reason why a fence shouldn't be put up or fixed. You really have no argument besides playing with definitions and spewing old used up cliches

"Unless some sort of technological solution occurs." The first sign of wavering. How's your reading of Land going? You like the information about technology much. Does the ware flash drive you more towards a disagreeableness that is so uncommon for explanations other than the age utopias birthed in factories - and because they must stop before they are begun, the whole fifth business and religious animosity becomes too, too much, or much too out of your control.

I'm getting good at pretending I'm not a robot. Say it with me now. I'm getting good at pretending I'm not a robot.

I'm getting to the point where silence and inaction are my gifts. And I really hope these Greeks don't relax and drink too much.

I suppose I have a strange anorexia in which I can convulse and regurgitate only what cannot be digested, what cannot nourish, and so nothing will come from my mouth - or, have they left this place?

>Yes! And in the future, we can only continue to have more and more cultural difference! More cultures, 2 to replace every 1 that dies!
Absolutely. Fucking. Hideous.

>But they are just flashes in the pan. And regardless, they weren't unchanging. Your examples are all military empires, focused on outward conquest and often slave taking and interracial marriage or at least interracial rape. The China of Emperor Qin and that of the Dowager Empress were radically different things.
They weren't military empires, they were dynasties with militaries. Militaries that preserved order and gave the men something to do.

>Slave taking and interracial marriage or at least interracial rape.
Yes. History is not for the squeamish. It's not a pretty subject. There's blood everywhere. That's how it is with humans. But there are also episodes of civilization between the atrocity and the shame of it.

>A nice sentiment for sure, but unrealistic.
Fuck "realism." Try aesthetics. Or ethics.

>What historical examples do you have of a fence not being taken down?
Why are you siding with History as if it is something that has nothing to do with human action? Unless you're talking about the Mandate of Heaven it's not an impersonal inhumane force. And even the MoH is usually understood by some inscrutably brilliant old sages who are advising kings on how to govern the land well.

>Doesn't every fence crumble eventually?
Only if you let them, aided by the tyranny of good intentions.

>The future I see is one of strife, contest, mutation and change, which is exactly how history has already played out. 'Things fall apart, the center can not hold.'
Except that the point of that poem is not to give up and abandon the ship. Or else that poem would never have appeared at all. It would have been a cheaper and shittier poem and we would not be talking about it right now.

>Both sides fear the violence of difference and want to prevent it through either peace and love or deterrence and exclusion. Both are illusory solutions of wishful thinking.
It depends on the nature of the *wish* and how much people are prepared to think about it. Wishing things not to be swept away in a flood-tide of cynicism and despair is not the same thing as wishing for them to be that way. And acting upon that wish is really what separates the wheat from the chaff.

>That's a myth just as much as ethno-national traditionalism is a myth.
Traditions are not myths. Related, but not identical. And in that earlier post you seem to be hung up on genes. It's not all about genetics. Cultures are rich and mysterious phenomena that do not admit of easy and reductive readings. Not even by insiders who ostensibly belong to them.

>My point isn't even to say 'Oh we need to be nice to all people of all races'.
Excellent. Mine isn't either. Interfaith dialogue is a good look. So is the UN Security Council. Or Interpol. Or any number of other things.

" spergs who think they are cyberpunks because they hate blacks and mine bitcoins like anime "

That post is cringe-inducingly long, and also clearly indicates that I have no idea how wheat threshing actually works. No surprise there.

tl;dr t. super-nerd

>Or else that poem would never have appeared at all. It would have been a cheaper and shittier poem and we would not be talking about it right now.
Good point, I've said this nearly verbatim. I wonder why every "It's just le future man xD" poster I encounter has to quote a poem by Yeats of all people.

I'm curious as to why Land doesn't address the possibility of genetic manipulation/positive eugenics. China is already ahead of the curve when it comes to researching how to guarantee children with high IQs, so that technology being forced upon their population seems likely. If not for the entire country, at least reasonably large enclaves of elites. In my head, I'm imagining an entire generation of hood rats and white trash that are more intelligent on average than the generation that proceeded them. Resources set aside to ensure their success like schooling and parental love seems irrelevant at this point.

>>Yes! And in the future, we can only continue to have more and more cultural difference! More cultures, 2 to replace every 1 that dies!
>Absolutely. Fucking. Hideous.
It's worse than you think. I think the inevitable trend is for each individual to not only have their own name (surely a novel prehistoric invention) but to have own specific gender, sexuality, maybe even language, culture, their own unique astrological sign. Maybe there could even be more cultures, more sexualities, more species than there are discreet individuals. We'd might invent new genders or species or nations the way we currently design new lifestyles and subcultures or sex acts, pre-imagining them in think-tanks and RD sectors.

>They weren't military empires, they were dynasties with militaries. Militaries that preserved order and gave the men something to do.
I don't buy this model of Empire. Empires seek to conquer and bring all things to the Imperial Center. All roads lead to rome. When Napoleon conquered Egypt he brought scientists along to learn it's secrets. Alexander the Great did the same thing, the same with Operation Paperclip in which the Americans captured the Nazi rocket scientists. Even magnetic tape was an obscure Nazi invention that languished in a US government vault for decades. Empires are vital not because of their sense or tradition (though this creates stability), they are vital because they expand, grow, research and change. This is why I brought up slavery and interracial rape, not to indict the ethical crimes, but because they activities of cultural expansion and mutation. There might be a naive self-deception "Oh these slaves won't change anything, we have the power!' but of course they do change everything.

>Why are you siding with History as if it is something that has nothing to do with human action?
I bring up History and realism because they can dispel the thousands of variations ethnic exceptionalism that have been disproven. Charlemagne isn't killing Saxons by the riverside anymore and no one calls themself a Frank. If we look back over 6000 years and see regular upheavel, the wholesale creation and destruction of cultures, then why would we fall into the trap of yet another specific religious-ethno-nationalist trap, whether it's American Exceptionalism or ISIS. Both die eventually.

We need to concieve of history as operations of forces, and if their are teleological (even metaphysical eschatalogical) conclusions to be found, they will discovered at the level trans-historical processes that we see across history. This is why Nick Land is focussed on Capital as a teleological force. That's surely temporary, but at least we're leaving the realm of naive ethno-nationalist Grand Narratives.

If Traditionalism has any purchase, it is as a trans-ethnic force. A psychological, socio-economic state, and we surely have to divorce any Folk notions of specific tribes, nations skin colors or genetic codes.

Good post all round. I agree with virtually all of it.

>I think the inevitable trend is for each individual to not only have their own name (surely a novel prehistoric invention) but to have own specific gender, sexuality, maybe even language, culture, their own unique astrological sign. Maybe there could even be more cultures, more sexualities, more species than there are discreet individuals. We'd might invent new genders or species or nations the way we currently design new lifestyles and subcultures or sex acts, pre-imagining them in think-tanks and RD sectors.

Death by novelty. See here. Land is aware of this also.
>As is well understood, ‘atoms’ are not atoms, and ‘elements’ are not elements. Elementary particles – if they exist at all – are at least two (deep) levels further down. Human individuals are certainly no less decomposable. Marvin Minsky’s ‘society of mind’ is but one vivid indication of how historical sociology might tilt into the sub-atomic realm. Particle accelerators demonstrate that shattering entities down to the smallest attainable pieces is a technological problem. The same holds in the social realm, though naturally with very different technologies.

Source:
jacobitemag.com/2017/06/06/atomization/

>Empires seek to conquer and bring all things to the Imperial Center.
Yes, this is true. The core of that centre is a true mystery for political science (at least, anything that can call itself political science with a straight face). Sloterdijk has written some really good stuff about it. Especially the concept of imperial emanation.

>This is why Nick Land is focussed on Capital as a teleological force
Hells yes my man, that's it, you've got it. He's doing to Marx what Marx did to Hegel. Okay, so if -

>That's surely temporary
w-what?

>but at least we're leaving the realm of naive ethno-nationalist Grand Narratives.
Yes. But the new Grand Narrative is Capital, which is mutually inhuman to everyone. A friend of mine actually suggested an interesting possibility, that it will resemble the Watchmen: once Skynet emerges, then people will band together and fight it. It's a nice thought. Unlikely, but a nice thought. Good for a movie anyways.

>If Traditionalism has any purchase, it is as a trans-ethnic force.
In a sense, yes. Esoterically there's a lot in common. But exoterica needs its room as well or you get all form and no content (or is it all content and no form?). Whatever. I think we're in agreement here.

>A psychological, socio-economic state, and we surely have to divorce any Folk notions of specific tribes, nations skin colors or genetic codes.
Won't happen, though. You don't get rid of Blood and Soil by taking out the Blood and the Soil. There's nothing left over. And when people feel they have nothing left over, Blood and Soil is what they go back to. The blood and the soil are necessary foundations for human development. It's all about those capital letters.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>naive ethno-nationalist Grand Narratives

This is a real thing though. *Do not tread lightly on the ethno-nationalist Grand Narratives.* Humans Do Not Like It When You Do This. Treat them with disdain at your peril. This is exactly what produces Petersons, and I like Peterson a great deal. However, he's the *nice* version of what happens when critical theory runs wild and begins deconstructing shit that it should leave alone.

Those Grand Narratives were not as naive as some suspect. They are in many ways profoundly knowing, they have just have to read *hermeneutically.* And not *critically.* Which is what happened to literature departments: they went bananas with post-structural theory because it *worked.* And now it's working too well, as is usually the case.

Religion and human religious practices require more sympathy then they usually get. A lot of pomo types are horrified by BF Skinner but the overreaction produces something much like the original.

The thing about those Grand Narratives is that they were pretty fucking Grand. Grandness is a thing. There's no substitute for a giant cathedral in France in the same way there's no substitute for a moment in a Japanese tea ceremony. But we can simulate everything these days. That's part of the problem.

>ah, shaddap you face
>thanks, internal self
>np

how come the jews get an ethno-nationalist grand narrative but no one else does? seems a bit unjust to me

>>As is well understood, ‘atoms’ are not atoms, and ‘elements’ are not elements. Elementary particles – if they exist at all – are at least two (deep) levels further down. Human individuals are certainly no less decomposable. Marvin Minsky’s ‘society of mind’ is but one vivid indication of how historical sociology might tilt into the sub-atomic realm. Particle accelerators demonstrate that shattering entities down to the smallest attainable pieces is a technological problem. The same holds in the social realm, though naturally with very different technologies.
I love this. We already see the individual breaking in the particle accelerator. Online avatars, marketing profiles, bots and scripts, not to mention all sorts of schizoid behavior as we navigate different social arenas. But will it go further? The 'future technologies' are terrifying. Cloning, brain-computer interfacing, AI, dopplegangers, trans-speciesiism, symbiotic relationships. Every sci-fi scenario you can imagine, eventually possible, or at least attempted in disaster.

>This is why Nick Land is focussed on Capital as a teleological force
Hells yes my man, that's it, you've got it. He's doing to Marx what Marx did to Hegel. Okay, so if-
>That's surely temporary
w-what?

It's a matter of horizons and entropy. There is a post-human future we can imagine, but is there eternity? Entropy would say no, that even Capital has to burn out on a cosmic scale. It's a distant horizon, one worth theorizing about. Land also talks about 'Transcendental Walls', an end historic point beyond which humanity (or intelligence) does not pass, but perhaps something else continues on. Regardless, just like History begins with the writing down of history, and everything else is cast into Pre-history, the Transcendental Wall, the Singularity, might mark a temporal change in which we can only speak of as Post-History.

Land gets into this in the Concept of Accelerationism in some of the final classes.

I would say that in the US, at least, so-called postmodern identity politics are really just the latest incarnation of black nationalism, with associated hangers-on who are eventually devoured for failure to be sufficiently anti-racist.

>ich humanity (or intelligence) does not pass, but perhaps something else continues on.
What reason is there to believe this?

>Yes. But the new Grand Narrative is Capital, which is mutually inhuman to everyone.
Other possible Grand Narratives exist, I think Environmentalism is a very compelling one that doesn't fall apart under typical deconstruction in the same way that the 20th century Grand Narratives do. Environmentalism is perhaps the traditionalist, conservative Grand Ideology of the next millennium. Protecting every species from extinction, turning the entire biosphere into a Garden, Zoo, Park. I need to read about it more, but so much of the Environmentalist movement falls into Folk Politics and Localism, 'Save the snowy owl', 'Protect this wetland'.

>Won't happen, though. You don't get rid of Blood and Soil by taking out the Blood and the Soil.
I mostly agree, but you do see some funny amalgamations out there. All of the neo- and pan- prefixes. Pan-Africanism, Neo-Paganism. Every form of traditionalism is essentially neo-traditionalism. They tell themselves lies about an idealized past, pretend nothing has changed, practice the old rites or reinvent it wholesale if the old rites are lost. Since every form of traditionalism is based on a lie and revisionism, perhaps 'universal traditionalism' could develop into some kind of Pan-Monarchism (oxymoron? lol) or Neo-Imperialism. The 'EVROPA' neo-folk bands do a lot of this mystical european nationalism that is entirely synthetic and quite broad and inclusive.

One historical instance that surprised me were the Ustaše in Croatia. They were fascist nationalists but they declared that both Catholicism and Islam were true Croatian religions. Multicultural Fascism!

Hitler in a Kimono for multicultural fascism. Actual photo, not a fake.

You probably knew this, but Hitler admired Islam, though he viewed the Arabs as an inferior race.

>A lot of pomo types are horrified by BF Skinner but the overreaction produces something much like the original.
can you expand the BF Skinner thing. I've read that book, but I'm failing to draw the connection.
>The thing about those Grand Narratives is that they were pretty fucking Grand. Grandness is a thing. There's no substitute for a giant cathedral in France in the same way there's no substitute for a moment in a Japanese tea ceremony. But we can simulate everything these days. That's part of the problem.

I agree with this and the 'hermenetic' method your describing. Whatever the faults of histories countless ideologies, we learn an immense amount about human nature through them.

But I think Accelerationism, and perhaps Enviornmentalism, and a few other -isms do provide new, potential, grand naratives, beyond the tribal, eth-nat variety and also the 3 greats of the 21st century, Fascism, Liberalism and Socialism.

I'm not going to argue for the annihilation of all ideology. There are new things on the horizon.

>how come the jews get an ethno-nationalist grand narrative but no one else does? seems a bit unjust to me

This is THE question of questions full stop period. Here's my woefully reductionistic and simplistic answer: the West stands on two legs, Greek philosophy and Judaeo-Christian religion. /pol/ and the alt-right and elsewhere wants to have its cake and eat it too - or, more specifically, it wants to have a cake that it doesn't deserve. The modern Control-Left wants to get rid of the Greek part. That's fucking stupid too.

The Grand Narrative is the one Peterson popping veins in his forehead trying to expound without going Deus Vult for this reason. The European West and its historical relationship with Israel is the world's most complicated question. Touches on everything. Continues to fucking touch on everything and make things explode. The tension comes baked-in to the classical, modern, and postmodern experience. Especially after WW2.

This answer is not nearly long enough but I'll come back to it later. It's the ultimate question of questions. Especially in terms of contemporary philosophy.

>I love this. We already see the individual breaking in the particle accelerator.
Welcome to the Land Rover. Please keep your arms and legs inside the transcendental time machine at all times. And in the event of contact with hyperstitial werewolves please contact...no one, we're all going to die, ahhhhhh *signal lost*

>I would say that in the US, at least, so-called postmodern identity politics are really just the latest incarnation of black nationalism, with associated hangers-on who are eventually devoured for failure to be sufficiently anti-racist.
Bret Weinstein thought this was what was happening at Evergreen. My own politics can be called anti-radical. I'm for sanity and against fucking hysterical meme-politics retardedness. Compose Thyself would be my model. But basically trying to be on the Right Side of History fucks everyone. There is no Right Side. There are no end to wrong ways to be on the Right Side. Basically, ressentiment.

(cont'd)

well, a simple scenario is human extinction, in which another species, natural or artificial (as if there was distinction) continues on but stops recording history, or perhaps lacks a sense of time as an arrow, like we humans do. Simple organisms at best perceive life as a cycle of seasons. Hard to say if they see their own death, their own future, just a primordial lack of time. Such a thing might occur in Post-History.

There are more bizarre versions. Hyperstitional Time War, ala the Lemurian Time War essay is one direction. Nick Land also devoted a whole class to the movie Arrival and the short story 'Story of Your Life' which offer equally anti-human notions of time as an arrow.

There is maybe a banal materialist interpretation of matter continuing on long after intelligence has left the universe. With no observer, History is over.

I'm really unclear about a lot of this stuff. A guy in the last Nick Land thread was way better versed in Land's notions of time travel, time binding, Kant, the Transcendental all that shit.

>environmentalism
You know what? You're absolutely right. *Deep Ecology* is actually potentially one of the places where the left and the right can link up. Everybody loves trees. Check out Arne Naess, pic related sometime. Environmentalism - smart environmentalism - is a thing. It really does connect both sides. Or it could. Of course, there's no money in it right now. Whatever tho.

This is a fun two minutes as well.
youtube.com/watch?v=Wwcap_-9tuA

>BF Skinner
Postmodernism can be genuinely postmodern in theory but seems to lead to modernist political experimentation in practice because it still runs on $$$. That's all. There needs to be room for freedom and dignity, which are complicated terms. Don't overthink it, it's a ten-cent point. I forget who it was that said that in the humanities too much humanity is given away for too little fiction. That's all.

> agree with this and the 'hermenetic' method your describing. Whatever the faults of histories countless ideologies, we learn an immense amount about human nature through them.
Yeah. Acceleration isn't really to me an ideology, more of a trajectory worth thinking about that maybe opens up the possibility of thinking about something that *could* work later. But it won't be an ideology. And you're right, there are new things.

>I'm not going to argue for the annihilation of all ideology. There are new things on the horizon.
That's the way I see things too. Don't try and kill the thing, it's like Bizarro Obi-Wan. Let it be.

>I'm really unclear about a lot of this stuff. A guy in the last Nick Land thread was way better versed in Land's notions of time travel, time binding, Kant, the Transcendental all that shit.
That guy may have been me. If you want I can try to explain some of this stuff more clearly, if you like, or as best I can. I have kind of an insane fascination with Nick Land these days.

Fuck Folk Politics on the left and right. Zionism, White Power, Black Power, Christian Fundamentalism, ISIS, Alt-Right, Rad-Left whatever. It's all just a narative of lies about the exceptionalism or the oppression of one subset, from within that subset.

The only types of Folk Politics that have any revolutionary potential are those which are fundamentally already synthetic and have very expansive self-deception.

Pan-Africanism, what a concept! A whole continent of thousands of cultures, joined into some new Folk polity? Same goes with the Latinx movement, of folk identities based on multi-ethnic realities. Feminism, especially the radical side with Cyber-Feminism and Xeno-Feminism has potential in it's profusion of new sexual and gender identity, it's productive and experimental approach to identity creation.

Still, these forms of bizarre folk politics are only provisional. I see them headed towards schism, it's their experimental nature, their out-right flimsy sense of reality, that demands innovation.