"Late Feminism" on Jacobite

They give you a reason why? That's a shame. DO atleast have a copy of what you wrote that your willing to post here?

Everything seems like alt-right tripe to you.

Am also interested.

They said it was "too broad" and didn't suit them. Which, you know, is all well and good, because the article is about Chesterton and his conception of liberty. I leaned pretty heavily on a Christian conception of liberty, drawing from an essay Chesterton wrote called "The Free Man." So it's full of references to Christianity and in general takes a very Christian and classics-centered perspective on liberty. So on the one hand I can't blame them for not wanting it since they're kind of a neoreaction, accelerationist site. It really isn't their vibe. On the other hand, writing about Chesterton and liberty was their idea in the first place, so I'm not really sure what they were expecting. I even had to fudge the beginning of it to make it fit what I thought they wanted, such that according to a professor of mine whom I showed the article to I actually wound up misrepresenting Chesterton a little. So, in light of that, I'm kind of glad it didn't run.

>Welcome Nick Land into your magazine
>Everything becomes the Capital
>Alt right becomes the Capital
>Late Left becomes the Capital
>Post modernism becomes the Capital
>No John you are teh capitals

That's why Warwick couldn't stand his antics and his meth. I love the man but he's literally spreading the written version of the black plague (which kinda fits the philosophy I guess, so all power to him).

stirnerites unite!

Try sending it to Social Matter.

It's a sjw shill.

I may, actually, after I tweak it a bit to get rid of the misrepresentations of which I spoke.

is nick land actually anti human or just giving a warning

I feel bad for women 2bh.

Calling everything a meme is commonplace now. That user was ahead of the curve

>mfw this kind of posting used to be a big deal

2014 feels so long ago

don't.

he has schizotypal personality disorder, I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a fuck about humanity

Do people on this board really feel this way about women? I agree with the description of the core differences between male and female experience in the world, but the conclusion to reserve hatred or scorn seems.... pathetic? I genuinely respect and pity those who choose the life of pain and self-hatred in order to grow their creative or intellectual capacity, and I see this choice to hate women for their supposed inferiority as a walking of that path. Plenty of the most illuminated among us, in all fields, do this. Whether it's the artist unconsciously working his hatred of women into something terribly beautiful, or the betrayal of sex that leads a monk into sublimation of the self.

However, there's also the path of acceptance of the world as it is. It can be childish as much as brave or transcendent to rage against the world for being the way it is. Women are different. If you can accept that, and them, and show at least one of them genuine love and respect, well, I think that's basically anyone's only chance at taking a try at self-actualization. A healthy being who functions in society, and still functions within and for himself. This, being rarer than the greatness of the psychotic earlier described.

The purpose of the Alt Right is twofold: profit and the obfuscation of serious discourse.

Sure

He's non-anthropocentric

It's not that bad, but it's way too short and shallow to support the sweeping claims it makes. It seems really lazy, like the person writing it was doing so in between shifts at his day job. Amateurish.

If you don't believe that women's suffrage is the gateway to national suicide then you are a mental infant.

You post this in every thread where someone toes past the line of neo-fascist wank you like to cower in.

Meanwhile in reality, there is no leftist invasion of Veeky Forums and there is a very real invasion of Veeky Forums by Stormfags and skinheads who finally figured out how to use the internet. This board isn't supposed to be particularly political, but it always used to be lefties on here. So fuck off with your bullshit. You're the one who doesn't belong here, cuckold.

>t. triggered women

>If you don't believe that women's suffrage is the gateway to national suicide then you are a mental infant.

Good point dude! Nice! haha YEAH good POINT woo WOO

if someon DISAGREE with he dude that MAN do make some THANK reatardED!

t. triggered NEET incel

>obfuscation of serious discourse
Those on the far right recognize the futility of "serious discourse." There is really no such thing as serious discourse. You enter into it with antithetical aims - right detests left, left detests right. Anyone who actually believes in debate is a fence-sitting milquetoast.

>pathetic?
Those are terrible qualities for any person to have and anyone who possesses them should be ashamed of themselves regardless of sex.
>However, there's also the path of acceptance of the world as it is.
>at least one of them genuine love and respect
This is the root of your problem: you equate hatred of a disgusting universal with the incapacity to love a beautiful particular. I despise the qualities attributed to women in that post and would contend that these things are even more common in men than in women. To despise the truly detrimental while appreciating the value of truly excellent is something that anyone with a basic concept of morality or aesthetics can tell you makes sense.
You are ovethinking this. Bad things are bad. Bad qualities are bad. People with bad qualities do not make the bad qualities better by having them. I have fucked plenty of women, enough to know that they aren't all that bad. At the same time, I often have to remind myself of their imperfections, since they are often so beautiful in appearance; though appearance does indeed necessarily reflect substance, appearance is never the whole of a thing. Women are as fickle as any human and capable of depths of stupidity that any human can attain. Humans are sinful, prideful creatures; to say that women are excused from these predicates because they are women is to imply an inhumanity on the part of woman.

>You enter into it with antithetical aims - right detests left, left detests right. Anyone who actually believes in debate is a fence-sitting milquetoast

t. American demi-human

Why do they even bother sending you people to schools? Just shove em' right into a Wallmart greeter's vest, for all the good it does you.

>Disputes claim with source without providing source
>Then makes claim without providing source

>All discourse is a debate between left and right
There you go again.
The Alt Right is pure liberalism, by the way.

LOL I remember when Kike Eunuch and company got doxxed. Why do you think the most significant propaganda center in the Alt Right is located at a .biz address if not because it's an entity that exists for profit?
Denying the Alt Right's attempts to colonize the rest of the Internet is hilarious. We all remember 2015 and 2016.

Good post. I agree with you, mostly. I certainly never implied we should excuse women their imperfections, though I see this urge throughout the general discourse in our culture.

Still, people like are clearly harboring something like a pathological hatred of women based in their own inadequacies. Maybe someday the male intelligence will be the only valuable trait, but that's not yet the reality, nor am I convinced it ever will be. Women and Men are made for the other in the deepest ways possible. I'm skeptical of the man that denies women humanity.

In the abstract, categorically, I find both women and men are pretty terrible. I'm not about to actualize these feelings in conversation though, and I'd rather work subtly and sensibly towards getting people outside of their comfort libidospheres, because the more abrupt option is not a good idea.

I'm not even Alt-Right and don't like TRS, what does that have to do with your post?

>Why do you think the most significant propaganda center in the Alt Right is located at a .biz address
But the Daily Stormer ends in a .com address.

So do all pre-20th century men harbor a "pathological hatred of women based in their own inadequacies?" You can think women are human and also think they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

>are clearly harboring something like a pathological hatred of women based in their own inadequacies
It's more of a historical observation that national destruction has followed broadened female emancipation in every society from the Romans onward.

Should all men be allowed to vote? Personally, I'm not a big fan of the idea of a universal franchise. Something based on merit would really make more sense.

All white men over the age of 25 should be allowed to vote, imo. You may have your own opinion.

Well, in my utopia, your opinion wouldn't be relevant.

I think only married men should vote, besides the qualifications you cited.

Only property-owning Asian fathers should be allowed to vote, with one vote per son.

seems incredibly simplistic and misguided but ok

American greatness, for example, proceeded apace after women were given the vote.

This is the distillation of regressive, blind thought. You can't do better than imagining that 1850 Virginia had the most ideal form of government in the world? Enjoy giving this dude the vote but not Anne Carson.

Well my ideal society would be a Christian one, so most men would already be ideally married by that time. But I don't think you should have to be married in order to.

>American greatness, for example, proceeded apace after women were given the vote
America proceeded apace into the fucking Great Depression a mere nine years after they were given the right to vote.

It's not regressive at all. In fact, Ethical Socialism aka National Socialism is the only real revolutionary conservative force in the world nowadays. And men like that wouldn't exist in my society, as military service would be mandatory and physical health and eugenics would be placed as one of the highest values.

Ironic given the fact that you're probably nothing like the ideal male you're upholding as your citizen in your dorky nazi dreamworld

I'm pretty fit, I lift and do cardio sometimes. We're just discussing ideal societies. What would your ideal society would be like?

You'll stop imagining ideal societies when you'll be 16

It's ok if you don't have one. It's fun to engage in a little speculation and role playing sometimes.

You lack imagination. Also you're too atheist. Clearly the proper conservative government is a Catholic aristocracy. Like old Venice.

Sorry for the ad hominem. Im being a dick.

Probably post-racial and deep into genetic manipulation of zygotes to fix low iq / low empathy populations. Education system would focus on teaching children to become self actualized and self-dependent humans. external validation seeking / self loathing account for so many of our societal problems, and they're usually intergenerational.

No, I'm a Reformed Christian. Not a Papist.

the market only caters to your needs. you get a product perfected based on your negative reviews. the stuff the article entails are direct result of insecure discourse much like this thread. you call the restaurants manager in an empty brain panic. its not about man vs woman anymore. you argue just as a couple would argue in a broken home towards your imagined husband or wife. the market isnt human but youd like it to be. what happens when the manager not only gives you a refund but lives your life for you, for your own convenience?

>people on this board
Outsiders need not ask, they need to lurk.

Votes should be between generals. Decisions should be made by the monarch.

Votes should be between shareholders. Decisions should be made by the CEO.

The crucial difference between a state and a company is that a state doesn't have to make a profit to justify its existence.

Read Moldbug.

I think the article is pretty bad. I see no reason why the Female sex is singled out, every point the author makes applies equally to men and women. Singling this out as a crisis in femininity is misleading, and reeks of resentment. Name dropping Xenofeminism without actually talking about it is pretty fucking lame too. It's there to say "I don't hate women! Look, I like Xenofeminism!".

The whole essay is filled with over-inflated claims with obnoxious rhetorical flourishes and needlessly complex grammar and vocabulary. It's pretension as hell.

This is coming from someone with a genuine interest in the subject matter and acceleration. This is just terrible writing.

I assume that the axiom they're working with is that men and women are essentially different. you can't apply theory both ways if you believe in biological determinism. women are reducible to evolutionary drives, which are biologically different or opposed to mens, and thus have a special application in the lovecraftian capital model.

>The Alt Right is pure liberalism, by the way.
proofs?

I think the continental plates shifted a tad from the force of that fedora tip, holy fucking shit.

So the future will be dominated by spergs that don't like women. Got it.

The Matrix wasn't wrong I guess. What he describes sounds about as cold and ugly as that movie portrayed the world as, at least.

That's a pretty ridiculous assumption in the context of the article. Why would artificial wombs render the female's position redundant, and not the male's position as well? An artificial womb doesn't even need an artificial penis.

It's been a well known fact that cloning technology doesn't even require sperm, that one, two, or even three or more women's DNA is all that's needed. There are some cyber-feminist models out there that call for women to raise children in groups of 3+ without male DNA donors. No such model is possible with only male donors.

All of this BS about "women's privileged position" in the article is a total joke. If anything, women have had been in a position of subjugation, almost domestication. The idea that they have historically exerted sexual selection is amazingly revisionist, when historically it's been male patriarch's choosing who their daughters wed.

If genetic technologies and reproductive technologies could make the biological sexes redundant, but if such technologies only make one sex redundant, it will surely be males.

Not egalitarian enough?

I agree. I'm just trying to make sense of it like you are :) the nrx position isn't exactly rigorous.

We wouldn't want to lose our most precious possession, our serious discourse.

>Late stage capitalism obsolesces femininity
Just the opposite. In the past, patriarchical social structures were justified by the male sex's superior strength. As first world states increasingly phase shift into information-based markets, the capital-constructed demarcation between spectral sex densities is violently dissolving. The male, who tends to favor top-down hierarchical systems of sociopolitical/cultural control is obliterated and transplanted by the female, who tends to favor horizontal social-webs. The female is optimized for global consumerism, and global consumerism is optimized for the female.

Ask yourself: has the world grown more masculine, or more feminine?

>Ethical socialism aka National socialism
what

thread is sex
cool stuff anons

hey girardfag, I've been meaning to talk with you. What do you think of the article, and what do you think of my comment ()?

Semi-relevant post I stumbled on last night

Wow great retort, really made me reconsider my original thoughts.

Gosh it's truly wonderful being gay.

the article is interesting as fuck as most always jacobite is. feminism & gender stuff grinds my gears like you wouldn't believe but only because meatbags cannot into forest > trees. all things gender comprise one of the world's most hot-button philosophical issues & it is virtually impossible to talk about this shit.

for example: land put this up on his twitter feed just the other day with the usual amount of bitterness & disgust you would expect. he thinks anything pomo is secular-progressive brainwashing & after evergreen & elsewhere it's hard not to think that something has gone terribly rotten in the state of denmark. but jacobite + theory &c >>>>> fuckface mimetic hackery.

youtube.com/watch?v=tUs6_Kcfieg

feminism a thing. xenofeminism a thing. desire a thing. sexbots a thing. transgenderism a thing. baudrillardian We All Transsexuals Now a thing. gender stuff is like climate change stuff: so massive & pervasive & w/implications so far-reaching that the whole thing imho is to hash all this shit out as intelligently & sanely as possible before leaping in to the We Should &c.

>zizek: marx was wrong. we have changed the world enough. the point is not to change the world, the point is to interpret it once again.

the eleventh thesis on feuerbach: massively wired-in to how much third-rate philosophy works. charity a good scene. red team/blue team: dumb dumb. *black* team: maybe not so dumb.

deleuze on societies of control: worth reading time & again. CTRL is the thing. CTRL is what matters. CTRL is non-binary. CTRL > transeverything.

cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

>In the past, patriarchical social structures were justified by the male sex's superior strength.
yes

>As first world states increasingly phase shift into information-based markets, the capital-constructed demarcation between spectral sex densities is violently dissolving
yes

>The male, who tends to favor top-down hierarchical systems of sociopolitical/cultural control is obliterated and transplanted by the female, who tends to favor horizontal social-webs.
entirely possible. who the fuck knows? i'm listening. could be? yes? implications?

>the female is optimized for global consumerism, and global consumerism is optimized for the female
to me it's just desire. desire is optimized for consumption, and consumption is optimized for desire. male/female beyond a certain horizon - the plane of the celestial hermaphrodite - no longer really registers to the machine. i think the enantiodromic endgame of desire is CTRL and that is all. CTRL is the real metaphysical bitcoin.

>Ask yourself: has the world grown more masculine, or more feminine?
only weirder & stranger & wilder & crazier.

so a fucking good post, i'd say, in a way cool thread w/a way cool article.

gender matters because desire matters. desire > everything. advertising is the new coal. how this plays out in culture? we will see
>popcorn intensifies

Is the average female all that favored by this though? Aren't they almost as alienated as the males? 'cause I don't see girls this generation forming gigantic social spiderwebs; if anything their social relations seem smaller than even my sister's (who's some ten years older than me). Too much work and too much spectacle to have friends.

I tend to perceive masculinity and femininity as two opposing homoestatic forces, and like any homeostatic process, there are coinciding positive/negative feedback loops that regulate one another (in some ways, the metabolic systems embedded within every layer of the body starting from the molecular up serve as a fractal microcosm for the policies and structure of a properly balanced state. but ofc no such state currently exists or has existed for some time)
I think that human behavior, insofar as it draws influence not only from culture, but from evolutionarily encoded impulses and semiurges, has been balanced by gender roles. Male reproductive behavior (which is to say all behavior) is balanced and opposed by female sex selection, and vice versa.
So if humanity is to be subsumed and assimilated by an asymptotically accelerating automated automation, wouldn't it make sense for the homeostatic properties intrinsic to our own sexual dimorphism be destabilized and eventually obliterated?

It doesn't just seem likely--it's absolutely palpable. So which sex/gender/metabolic feedback loop gets the axe?

Seeing as how the vast majority of the worlds cultures were historically patriarchical, it makes sense that, for whatever reason, males were the torchbearers of tradition. Hell, don't take my word for it, listen to the words of all the SJW theorists, who've long claimed that the woman/homo/trans (note: all variants of femininity) is the vanguard of progress.
Left communism is an aberration, I think, because although liberals will weakly proclaim to protest or dislike capitalism, it is precisely their policies that clear its path; the left/right dichotomy is not two horses bound together, straining in opposite directions, it is one horse straining to move an anchor. Modern republicans are merely confused liberals, and liberals represent the thrust forward

this.

i think, however impossible it may seem, that desire has to be a thing discussed metaphysically & w/o reference to identity politics. this includes gender & normativity. that would seem to me to be at least one possible heuristic for determining the difference between something approximating philosophy & that which is clearly approximating sophistry and seduction.

being a master of suspicion is old news. of course we are floating in mid air. of course.

so how about Back to the Greeks? something like this? it's probably not possible & i don't know how valid a prospect this is. but what *can* be discussed w/o infinite What Did He Mean By This?
>tfw a genealogy of irony seems like an interesting idea. what happened with irony between the 60s - today? where were the cultural shifts and turns? whither Hulkamania? &c

the problem with this is that it would seem that *any* attempt to look at things beyond the horizons of identity politics is going to be construed as an attack on the emancipatory possibilities of identity politics themselves. to not want to talk about gender & identity is itself to immediately signal that you are an Enemy. this is what opens the Great Schism - and honestly, how much does the world today not resemble an age of schismatics w/in post-war liberalism? and suggesting nothing more than a Thirty Years' War over all of this stuff?

desire is something that can never, really, be discussed objectively. even in a world that wasn't feels > reals. but this *is* a feels > reals world, imho. and that is why the feels do need to be discussed as """""""objectively""""""""" as possible.

kefka palazzo probably > j-pete. but j-pete is antifragile as a mofo and he too will go on doing his thing.

who's feeling Back to the Greeks? perhaps can into. or Back to _____? New Game+? i'm curious.

as philoso-memes go new game+ sounds pretty fucking cool to me.

Also, I want to contest the (inferred) implication that hierarchy is purely based on strength. What about social pedigree and wealth? What about age and experience? What about aggressiveness and intelligence? Or other character traits such as honesty, fortitude or loyalty? And what about everyone in the middle between the boss and the bottom? How much is female=horizontalism influenced by male=verticalism? Because in my experience, when females are let to themselves in a work area, they don't fall directly into absolutist concensus and can be as prone to admire the excellent as males are.

they problem is that the greeks are alien and you don't have to interpretive tools to grasp original meaning. you can't ever go back, any movement backwards will just by a syncretic project.

It kind of depends upon your interpretation of the word "favored". In this context, it should be disentangled from all positive/humanist connotative value. Being favored by capital/progress/technology is like being "favored" by Cthulhu--perhaps it is better to be eaten.

But you're right, girls aren't forming huge social circles. I spoke wrong (some of this is hard to convey and it doesn't help that I'm a charlatan)
Have you heard of the plane of immanence? What we're seeing is a flattening of once vertical hierarchies. Where once the world was perceived as a set of distinct forms and substances, it is increasingly becoming one Massively Entangled Assemblage Thing. Masculinity is all about the construction and maintenance of rigid boundaries. As demarcations and boundaries are dissolved, so is masculinity. Hypotonic/Hypertonic, etc..

let's *de*-alienate then. we know plenty about alienation. maybe some people in white lab coats
>or white togas
is the order of the day.

there is a word for this already, of course: it's motherfucking Caaaaaaaaaaapitalism, which has learned everything and more about this process & uploaded it - is uploading it, right now - to mainframes to sell us fantasies of chicken sandwiches devoured by porn stars & starlets.

reigning in desire: a good scene.
>says the unhinged lunatic shitposter

but the thing isn't about politics. metaphysics > politics, i says, and aesthetics > metaphysics. desires overcome and transmitted to the human sciences, just as the man says. or lacan: traversing symbolic orders. or deleuze: madness is unbecoming, it isn't as sexy as we think it is. the rabbit hole has no bottom.

let's look to people who have *resolved* their shit rather than those in a permanent kaleidoscopic wilderness of irresolvability. not finally & w/respect.

you know who had a good sense of this? fucking Euripides. the Bacchae. Pentheus. imprison not the god of wild desire & presume he can be commanded. let's not think we can torture that poor fellow or put him to work in the media department. let's try something more enlightened. let's get some buddhists & chinese sages in the room.

Glad /pol/ is here to (((save))) us.

Because it is. One of the founders frequents Veeky Forums and often shills his shitty website here. I guarantee you he posted this.

& for the record i have no real issue with any of this, either. this is exactly the kind of shit that gets my noggin floggin.'

>So which sex/gender/metabolic feedback loop gets the axe?
amor fati. ideally nobody gets the axe but maybe we prune & cultivate some gardens. something like deep-scale psychic ecology lies in this direction.
>ya gotta be kidding me
>why not? how's repression working out?

>Modern republicans are merely confused liberals, and liberals represent the thrust forward
this. freedom is the thing: and i might even say that freedom really means to discover enantiodromics. free to become the opposite of what you once were & learn something about being and becoming.

speaking of which

>it is precisely their policies that clear its path; the left/right dichotomy is not two horses bound together, straining in opposite directions, it is one horse straining to move an anchor

then to write your small scroll & fragments cosmic and leave it in the temple before departing to starve yourself in the wilderness like based omnipilled megaphilosophical all-star heraclitus "i'm fucking heraclitus" heraclitus
>or something

i don't know man. i'm just riffing here. but beyond a certain horizon it just makes more sense to me to say ridiculous & hyperbolic things rather than not say them

also heraclitus
>hnng heraclitus
>hnng enantiodromia
>hnng quantum physics & mimetic desire & therapy & ff6
>fucking hell Veeky Forums i'm supposed to be doing something productive today why are you always so face-fuckingly interesting & cool & awesome can't you see i'm trying to hate the world here why why why why do you do this to me

how can you de-alienate when accelerationists and traditionalists and liberals want to continue the source of modern ennui in the first place? everyone is too shit scared to look forward, always backward, to the same thoughts that make capital stronger.
i.e bacchanalia and the carnival was seen as a necessary part of a sexually/gender repressed society. it seems desire and its regulation are not as simply as our limited classical knowledge would have us believe. a lesson Justinian learnt the hard way at nika

you know it's interesting, from your posts I always get the idea that you think this is all cool and interesting, and it is, but at the same time a lot of this stuff legitimately scares the shit out me. I have no idea how to fix Land's wild ride, much less get off.

Thanks girardfag for saving this thread.

this man was one of the great hands-down no question S-rank prophet/visionaries of the 20c.

youtube.com/watch?v=4x6725NW8vw

>how can you de-alienate when accelerationists and traditionalists and liberals want to continue the source of modern ennui in the first place?
by understanding. skip all the ideologies, skip the ennui too. stare into the madness and get face rolled & write poetry or compose a song. whatever the fuck. whatever.

cynicism/ennui: played.
the gutenberg galaxy & its pants-on-head retarded complexity: not played.

being a smug retard: meme.
being a triggered retard: meme.
having your shit shredded to pieces & contemplating
>those vaporous beings in regions beyond right knowing where the eye wanders and the lip jerks and drools
: not meme.

>everyone is too shit scared to look forward, always backward, to the same thoughts that make capital stronger.
mcluhan: the future of the future is the present, and that is terrifying.

everyone is scared. everyone should be scared. but. but but. let's un-scare. let's de-alienate. let's re-thinkify. let's re-brainificate. let's upgrade paranoia & get a grip. let's All Of That.

shed cynicism, lose madness, drop the rest. let's Flaky Cosmic New Age Bullshit w/required and ugpill when we get too out there. much else.

let's activate the emergency battery power on philosophy & kill the t-1000.
>let's meme like a hysterical memecuck
>way ahead of you inner self
>ffs kys girardfag
>i'm tryin' i'm tryin' heah

>i.e bacchanalia and the carnival was seen as a necessary part of a sexually/gender repressed society
it was. 2000 years of oedipus will do that

>it seems desire and its regulation are not as simply as our limited classical knowledge would have us believe
boy you got that right

>a lesson Justinian learnt the hard way at nika
spenglerian grand-style history & much else did *absolutely* nothing wrong

>I always get the idea that you think this is all cool and interesting
i do

>and it is
aye

>but at the same time a lot of this stuff legitimately scares the shit out me
me too. don't think it doesn't. my life is a *mess* because of this shit. spent too much time thinking instead of being prudent

>I have no idea how to fix Land's wild ride, much less get off
me neither. randy savage had a good idea. mcluhan got it. girard. deleuze. slotetdijk. the chinese. the stoics. there's no end of philosophers out there to read. find the ones you like & read the shit out of them. believe the hype. philosophy is the coolest but it is indeed a Wild Ride.

one idea: don't be like me. don't be an unhinged lunatic. not worth it. much substance abuse follows. and, i will say this again, my five favorite words:
>i am not a philosopher

i'm not. i'm a meme-addled failed writer w/an unholy thirst for metaphysics. just a memer memeing. trying to clean his room. nothing more. warrants mentioning.

it's the other way around my guy