"Psycho Politics" by Nick Land

>These fake intellectuals who go half way and only lead people half way for self-preservation are fucking phonies.

Land is explicitly anti-human. If you're hoping for alt-right pandering, you're in the wrong place.

Read Moldbug's UR post on why he isn't an anti-semite, senpai

Why would it be?

I'm not looking for pandering, I'm looking for honesty, and your boy here isn't honest. He's a fraud.

Did that years ago, not interested. But what are you talking about? How moldbug isn't an, ahem, "antisemite"? He's a jew, no shit.

Nick Land must be the only (or first?) writer in the history of philosophy who started off doing basic continental philosophy but then had his world rocked by the far-out speculations of the Scottish Enlightenment and classical liberalism.
Books Nick Land would want by his bedside if war broke out: The KJV Bible, Complete Works of Shakespeare, Paradise Lost, Wealth of Nations, Essay on the Principle of Population.

Good God I fucking hate English people

Why?

I've been Landskeptic for a long time. There is something about him that does keep me curious, and I think he is certainly creative and intelligent, but yet I still don't get all the hype. My brain seems to not sponge on his ideas as much as other thinkers. Nor dopamine rush at all.

There's a confluence of interest in him. There are some confused alt-righters and white nationalists who like him, there is the NRx/Libertarian crowd who is interested, then there is the Accelerationist/D&G crowd.

The alt-righters are just confused. The Libertarians like his more recent and current work. The Accelerationists are mostly interested in his early work.

And everyone gets annoyed at different aspects of his work.

>The alt-righters are just confused
About what?

Please be bait

That Nick Land's philosophy aligns with their political program. It really doesn't.

Not trying to shit on them. That's not the topic of the thread. But when you get posts like , it has to be spelled out clearly. Just because he isn't a leftist continental philosopher, it doesn't put him in the Trump camp.

do you know what language youre speaking bitch boi?

A language that soon will be detached from its former owners...

That was my post. It seems like you're the one kind of conflating things with the Trump/alt right references though. Land is quite clearly picking out alt right arguments at his convenience, such as that only white people care about individualism and abstract political ideas like libertarianism, but then masking it by appealing to the eternal jewish victim complex. That's why I called him a coward.

Ah, then you aren't confused about Nick Land's position! I just see a ton of anti-semites, white nationalists, and other 'reactionaries' (not even neo-reactionaries) posting on his blog, they equate shared enemies (leftism) with a shared platform and keep getting upset that he won't denounce the jews.

Well, can't say I blame them. The jewish question is a real issue that is interwoven into nearly everything. People who avoid it out of fear of reprisal from jewish interest groups are not really much better than leftists, and will be targeted and called cowards by people like myself.

>People who avoid it out of fear of reprisal from jewish interest groups

See this is strange to me. I'm sure these people exist, who dislike jews but fear being ostracized, but I have to imagine that most people who don't talk about the Jewish Question do so because they don't dislike Jews and don't believe in the problem. It seems like a big projection to assume that people who avoid the topic, do so out of fear.

>are not really much better than leftists, and will be targeted and called cowards by people like myself.

Yeah, and this is the part that is silly to me. Why waste your time convincing your enemy? Surely you can just use your superior knowledge to outmaneuver your enemy, to minimize them, and defeat them, without ever actually having to engage them. What good does calling out Land do for your cause? You know he's married to a Jew right? I really doubt you're going to convince him, or anyone genuinely interested in him (who is also probably interested in a variety of other Jewish intellectuals).

The culture wars aren't fought on Veeky Forums.

There's something to be said about the first part, especially with those over 40, but Land isn't your average plumber; he is someone who is claiming to understand sociopolitical realities, and what people like myself are saying is that you fundamentally cannot understand those realities with out understanding jewish influence and how jews use that influence to promote their group interests. I read that article nodding along until I came to the part about jews being yet again some poor scapegoat in the equation who gets targeted because mean populist whites are just looking for someone to blame, without entertaining any argument that such a thing could be a result of their own behavior. That is the problem here.

Yes, I heard he has a jewish wife and I'm no doubt sure that factors in, but that doesn't matter to people like myself who are pointing out how his arguments are flawed and where they unravel since he's going along pretending or believing -- doesn't matter which -- that whites and jews are perpetuating something together when in fact the two's interests are in direct conflict with each other, and that this conflict is the source of the problem Land is trying to diagnose and find a resolution for.

Great essay. Reading Land makes me feel like a cyberspace cowboy.

Christ's peace be with you, user, and death to liberalism.

Yeah, so I'm not actually interested in debating whether or not the Jews run the World.

What baffles me about 'your type' (and I apologize for lumping you in with other anonymous posters who's views may not align perfectly), is that I think you're reaction to the article seems out of place and strangely antagonistic. Rather than just thinking he might be wrong, you jumped to the conclusion that he is a coward. You've turned what could be perceived as just an intellectual failure, into a moral failure.

>since he's going along pretending or believing -- doesn't matter which

It is typical in a philosophical debate to assume that the person you disagree with is stating their opinions in good faith. Of course he could be pretending, but like you say, it doesn't matter, since we're never going to prove such a deception. Moreso, the strength of his argument should be detached from the person. Pretend his article was generated by a computer, or that it was carved into stone tablets by a deity, or that the wind carved it into the side of a canyon. You can debate the message, without any need to shoot the messenger.

This is something I see time and time again from (again apologies) your type. Freud? JEW, can't trust him. Marx? JEWISH CONSPIRACY. Einstein? JEW. There is an unhealthy fixation on the messenger, while the message is never throughly reasoned with/against. If someone doesn't accept the Jewish Conspiracy, then they're automatically part of it.

Also, the self righteous tone of your posts
> People who avoid it out of fear of reprisal from jewish interest groups are not really much better than leftists, and will be targeted and called cowards by people like myself.
>people like myself
Shouting out your philosophy makes you heroic, you aren't a coward. It's a righteous cause, it's a culture war and you are a cultural warrior.

I just don't think these attitudes and stances are at all helpful for a political dialogue, and certainly not a philosophical one, which really needs to check emotion and self-aggrandizing at the door.

And of course, these crimes are perpetrated on the left as well. They can be just as self righteous, hot-headed, uncompromising, absurdly fixated on a single narrative.

Are you jewish?

I am an anonymous user. You can either decide to project Jewishness onto me, or reason with my arguments as if they came out of any number of bodies, human or otherwise.

I'm actually a dolphin.

>The hideously compelling but utterly illiberal conclusion seems to be that women and non-whites have used their rising political influence to massively expand the scope of government.

Now we're getting somewhere

Uh. It's a simple question that is pertinent to the discourse here. So are you?

Can we the discuss the article instead of go on about the fucking Jews again? Srsly there's no conspiracy because the world is actually rudderless. Not everything has to be about the Jews.

The article itself was rather interesting, seeing globalization a purely Anglo invention is a new perspective on the issue. More interesting when you realize Europe consists of social democratic societies and USA/Britain, are market societies.

>This is something I see time and time again from (again apologies) your type ... JEWISH CONSPIRACY

And this is something I see all the time from *your* types. This is what I said:

>understanding jewish influence and how jews use that influence to promote their group interests

You're capable of comprehending that different groups have different interests and work together toward different goals, aren't you? This is basic evolutionary behavior, and those who try to pass it off as a "conspiracy theory" are being dishonest if they think it is a legitimate excuse to not hold jews accountable for the results of that behavior.

You are trying to fool people by advancing the bogus notion that jews don't hold disproportionate power, have separate interests, or use that power to collectively promote their interests. You are trying to deceive people into thinking that reality is some kind of "conspiracy" (putting aside the actual definition of that term) when it is documented and verifiable.

And Land is doing the same thing. This is why people call him out and why people like myself call you out. Since you don't seem to want to answer the question regarding your ethnicity, I'm assuming you're jewish, and that explains entirely why you are making the argument you are: you are defending your groups interests. That's fine, but the problem is that you also feel entitled to attack whites who do the same by calling whites like Land who avoid the jewish question cowards.

>Can we the discuss the article instead of go on about the fucking Jews again?

No. These things can't be separated.

>globalization a purely Anglo invention

This epitomizes the lies jews and shabbos goyim like Land promote. This us nonsense, and Land is a fraud and a coward.

>JEWS

new filter. thx fr th mmrs Veeky Forums

Right, I'm not interested in determining whether Jews are the problem or if Jews control the world. That isn't what I'm trying to debate with you. This is a formal problem, about how philosophical discussions happen. The rules of engagement. We have to take each other's arguments in good faith.

My interest here is more narrow. Trying to improve the discussion climate on Veeky Forums. Let me summarize my comments again:

1. You assume Nick Land is deceitful, because he fails to share your political opinions on Jews.
2. You assume Land is a coward, because surely he knows the truth about Jews, and is too afraid to say so.

I think these assumptions are irrelevant, anti-philosophical, and shut down any dialogue. You're making judgements of his moral character, when at most you should be making judgements of his intellectual ability, but hopefully more specifically, you'd be interested in debating his political argument.

You're shooting the messenger dude. Even now my identity is in question. If I am a Jew, does it make all of my opinions worthless? Why would you spend time debating with me then? Why would spend time debating on a forum where you can't ascertain the ethnicities and religions of everyone posting?

Replace the word Jew with Christian, or Muslim, or Communist, or Martian, or w/e. My argument would be the same. Philosophical and political discussion has to happen in good faith, otherwise we're just talking past each other.

And no, I'm not Jewish. But I resisted saying that because this is an anonymous message board and I have no hope of proving my identity. Further, it shouldn't matter. Take my arguments in good faith. Assume I'm telling my honest opinion. If you want distrust me, assume I'm a Jewish agent bent on destroying white culture, that's your paranoia.

I totally agree, the idea that any group is coherent enough to ensnare the world in it's plans is just paranoia. I think Land's arguments about Capital as an already existing AI far outweigh any ethnic conspiracy. Capital is structural, inhuman, it does order the human world, specifically because it isn't as capricious as humans are. It doesn't die. It isn't vulnerable to psychological drives and desires. It can't be lazy. It can't be forgetful. It improves and refines itself, or it burns out.

The world is either a slow motion catastrophe or a slowly awakening super intelligence. The idea that Jews are running things is laughable.

its not that naive. all you need is control of what people watch and enjoy. specially nowadays

You put yourself in the firing line by continuing to mischaracterize my argument. I explained it in simple terms of group interests and tribalism yet you keep trying to tell me that I'm telling you that there's a "jews control the world" conspiracy. And then you want to lecture me about arguing in good faith? Come on...

And it absolutely does matter who is making the argument, but I can see why you don't want to believe that is so if you are incapable of realizing that people are different and therefore argue/act differently. Your problem is, most likely, that you are under the impression that other people think individialistically like you do when they don't. Jews have a motto: "is it good for the jews?" They think tribally, and you will continue to be lost here and not understand what's going on until you learn about how that tribal way of thinking manifests itself in the real world.

Now the main issue with Land and people who think like him, as this poster so kindly highlighted for us, is that they believe, and foolishly so, that "capitalism" is some kind of machine with a mind of its own when it is subject to human inputs. The premise behind this idea is utterly stupid because institutions are a reflection of the people who are in charge of them. Capitalism is a human system, it does not act on its own, and people like Land and yourself and many others who think that a "system" is to blame are misguided because you refuse to look at the racial realities of human difference and who controls the inputs of the system. And yes, in the postwar era those people have been overwhelmingly jewish.

You don't want to acknowledge this aspect or look at the information confirming what I'm saying, I know, because you are under the mistaken belief that humans have little or no control over "the system" that is so convenient for you to blame, when humans, and a particular tribe of humans from the middle east, are very much in control of determining how that system is managed and what it in turn produces.

>You put yourself in the firing line by continuing to mischaracterize my argument. I explained it in simple terms of group interests and tribalism yet you keep trying to tell me that I'm telling you that there's a "jews control the world" conspiracy

Read my post again. I did not do what you are accusing me of. I'm not interested in determining the truth or fiction of how much influence the Jews have on the world. I am not mischaracterizing your argument. I'm debating the grounds on which you're calling Land a fraud and a coward, which is patently anti-philosophical. You're shooting the messenger.

And no, it doesn't matter who makes the argument. An argument could be made by dolphins, computer AI, Jews, sentient underwear, non-sentient underwear. In philosophy, you debate the merits of the argument, not the moral character of the person making it.
---------------------------
Now the second part of what you've posted! That's actually something that can be engaged with dialogue. Who's in control, Humans or Capitalism? People might try to control the world, but they do a shit job at it. Meanwhile, capitalism, when seen as an organism symbiotically attached to humanity, is experiencing explosive growth. In a few hundred years, it's hijacked a species: reoriented it's political goals, made it a slave to economic growth and industrial techniques. Deskilled an entire species. How many of us can make a fire? Or hunt for food? Or farm a crop or raise livestock?

Your argument, that capitalism is a system that is based on human input does have merit. Capitalism is not (yet) self sufficient. But the technological horizon appears aimed at wholesale replacement of that human dependency. Greater automation, greater information processing, advanced robotics. Capitalism has a vision without Humanity. Humanity has only a vision co-dependent on Capitalism.

You'll say Capitalism as Organism is magical thinking. That it has no agency. Would you say the same of insects? Are they a system entirely determined by humanity? That'd be ridiculous. If autonomous systems, independent of humanity, are possible, and if we see a technological horizon aimed at such independence, it's isn't far fetched to worry about (or promote) such a future.

There's no way around this part, friend, so I'm going to reiterate it: that it absolutely matters who is making the argument because their nature and interests determine the basis for why they are making it. Just as institutions, which provide the bones for capitalism to move, are reflections of the people who either created them or are currently running them. If you are upset that capitalism seems to be enslaving you, well, that's because its inputs are largely in control of the tribe that historically dominated the slave trade: jews.

You can't get away from it. There has been a transition from a WASP elite to a jewish elite since WWII and that change is reflected through not only capitalism, but the media that jews control 93% of in the US, the culture reflected through jewish Hollywood propaganda, the actions of NGOs that jews like George Soros have so much control over, and the international institutions that are fueling a global capitalist system and diminishing the power of the state (UN, IMF, World Bank, EU, etc.).

Now why are the above things so shitty? Because they aren't run by white people anymore, they are being perpetuated by a tiny, authoritarian semitic tribe and are now working actively against white people by promoting mass 3rd world immigration, transfers of wealth, and policies that favor global capitalism instead of the nation state, because western nation states are inhabited by white people. Where do you think all the anti-white propaganda comes from? It's not that difficult to figure this stuff out.

The point is that it's absolutely silly to blame these transformations on the boogeyman system of capitalism. It doesn't work like that. Why is the system and its institutions working against the interests of the white people who created the system and its institutions? Because whites have been overtaken by jews who are using that system and its institutional inputs explicitly against us because jews view whites as an enemy. And that's natural ... that's how nature works, group struggle. But whites are the only people who cannot act as a group even as our nations get flooded with mud people. Ever wonder why?

There's a reason for these things. It's not a conspiracy, its just jews manning the inputs and using them to further their interests.

>masking it by appealing to the eternal jewish victim complex
Kek, u r dum

>or anyone genuinely interested in him
Nick Land is my favorite philosopher and I'm an antisemite, I like Moldbug too. It's not like philosemitism is baked into the Landian cake or something.

>because their nature and interests determine the basis for why they are making it.

Nah, non-Jews promote Jewish arguments all the time.

>mud people
Stay classy

Would you be willing to read his wife, Anna Greenspan's writings? Or is that out of the question for?

That's the entire culture we live in. That shabbos goyim reinforce jewish interests does not make those interests any less jewish.

Classiness is not determined by one's favorability toward the low IQ brown people storming white nations for things they can't create on their own.

>Would you be willing to read his wife, Anna Greenspan's writings?
If they're interesting. I'm intelligent enough that I can separate an author from their writings and find what's useful in their works.

>That shabbos goyim reinforce jewish interests does not make those interests any less jewish.

Yes but the point is that it is not the white nature or interest to promote Jewish arguments. So it doesn't 'absolutely matter' who is making the argument since the arguments don't necessarily reflect nature/interest, as in the case of whites.

I'm not completely sure what you're getting at here, but institutional control over the last ~50 years has allowed jews to promote an anti-white narrative that many whites buy into because it's all they've ever known, and because it's presented to them as being moral. But it's still important to distinguish that this narrative is fundamentally jewish and reflective of jewish hatred of whites, and not just say 'well, whites believe it too so jews can only be blamed x-much'. The jew must be pointed out explicitly so he can be removed from white societies, that's the primary goal here.

> not just say 'well, whites believe it too so jews can only be blamed x-much'
That's not what I'm getting at. I explicitly stated my point here:
>So it doesn't 'absolutely matter' who is making the argument since the arguments don't necessarily reflect nature/interest, as in the case of whites.

>many whites buy into because it's all they've ever known, and because it's presented to them as being moral
So you're saying that people can 'buy into' an argument and it doesn't necessarily reflect their nature or interest as you have suggested here:
>it absolutely matters who is making the argument because their nature and interests determine the basis for why they are making it.

So there could be a reason still for why Jews are making arguments that favour capitalism because it is all they have ever known and it is presented to them as moral, or whatever the main incentive for believing an argument would be to Jews.

Whether the Jews are in charge of running capitalism is irrelevant to where capitalism is heading. If you can believe that whites are being exploited by Jews to the point of their own destruction, it shouldn't be hard for you to accept that potentially the Jews are being exploited to the point of their own destruction as well, by promoting capitalism. After all, they promote more than just capitalism, but it seems that capitalism is the one thing that they are promoting that is running out of control (per the accelerationist argument).

The Jews aren't masters of their own fate.

Perhaps I was thinking in a more cultural sense than pure capitalism. And I think jews have what seems like suicidal tendencies as they don't know when to stop antagonizing and attacking their host which is why they've been booted from so many places, so I guess I agree if you think their downfall is baked into their own plan.

But also, I think it's important to draw the national / international distinction here. Jews are a a foreign presence and are by their very nature against their host population and whatever particular nation it happens to be. Jews in turn try to establish international systems through which to control other people's nations, such as with the Soviet Union which was a beta version of the EU. People used to refer to jews as "internationalists" for this very reason, because the jew as a powerful outsider essentially works against the state and its national interests and does so largely through international institutions that have cropped up in or around the WWII. That's why I mentioned the IMF, UN, etc., in an earlier post; regardless of whether or not you want to think jews "control the world" or whatever, they have a big hand in setting up international systems as ways to control nations. Why are they doing that? I don't know, but they are, and their religious books literally say jews shall control the world, so people can make of that what they will. But whites like the other guy I was arguing with really have to get it into their heads that jews aren't like them and view them an enemies. You will not understand shit until you go down that path.

That said, I view capitalism as merely something that exists no matter what and believe it is only ever a reflection of the people running institutions, so it's shitty now because those running them are jews and we need to kick them out if we want capitalism, our sick culture, or anything to get better. They are the source of the problems, but that's probably well off your point here regardless.

What did he mean by this? Anyone care to elaborate on this point?

>tfw your accelerationist views will never be taken seriously because of people who use triple brackets

>Would you say the same of insects? Are they a system entirely determined by humanity?
you are not seriously comparing non-human nature to human made systems aren't you ? Yes, insects will probably continue to exist after humans are gone, but all human made systems and ideologies like capital or communism will cease to exist when humans are gone (probably sooner than later, and good riddance I say). Unless you believe all that rapture-for-nerds singularity AI nonsense.

The cleverest people that lived in Europe since the times of the Greeks all recognised that some of us are resigned to miserable and tragic fates, and to avoid that outcome is impossible.

What he meant by this is "reee fuck continentals reee"

The Greek made us Western