the alt-right

At what point does he stop making dumbass red-state/blue-state stereotypes and generalizations and get to DE ideology?

xp

it's like 8 or 9 articles. i like when he talks about colonialism and the third world and the meaning of liberation/nationalism etc. there are productive contradictions embedded in left-wing post-cold war ideologies (like third world nationalism v. globalization secularism) of course you don't need moldbug to tell you that but he imo makes some provocative points. xxp

um - end of first letter beginning of second iirc? he spends a lot of time making spurious conclusions about crime in victorian england which is a bummer that scott addresses in his anti-reactionary faq.

goole: Wow

oh god *deep breath* yeah there are still some (how many?) throne and altar european right wingers out there. or weirdo catholic sedevecantist types. that all precedes and doesn't really relate to what we're talking about here,

i think like current poland + russia are aspirational models for some of these white americans

been a while since i went through nick land / moldbug and may have this wrong but there seems to be a strain in deep techbro dark enlightenment where we literally rebuild god (as inhuman synthetic intelligence born of global capitalism itself) so we can kneel properly? (to god, but also to his deserving priests?)

i haven't heard anything like that - seems crazy (not like mainstream DE isn't)

I dunno if Sam has any real political views besides "lol"

have u noticed a pattern wrt this claim

That moldbug guy makes a pretty terrible argument.

could swear that's in nick land somewhere but maybe it's just my own cult-of-moloch fanfic xxp

been a while since i went through nick land / moldbug and may have this wrong but there seems to be a strain in deep techbro dark enlightenment where we literally rebuild god (as inhuman synthetic intelligence born of global capitalism itself) so we can kneel properly? (to god, but also to his deserving priests?)

― florence foster wallace (difficult listening hour), Thursday, October 6, 2016 10:53 AM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbh i would read the shit out of a novel about this

it sounds close to the concept of this Dilbert cartoon from 1996:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQqnskzW8AAfFzo.jpg

It is a terrible article, in a terrible tone - intentionally rather than accidentally Donald Sutherland when he's just playing with you, before he turns steely.

weird soap opera detail: nick land is jeremy greenspan's (junior boys) brother in law

i am wrong in notable ways. from this thing about him by robin mackay:

Digital technology, according to Land, unveiled a side of numbers that subtracted them completely from the power-structures of meaning and signification that made language a prison-house for thought; it even removed numbers from the stratified realms of mathematics, into a pure, flat plane of immanent materiality inhabited only by ‘tics.’ Accelerating ‘in-silico’ Capital’s planetary experiment of ‘tacking’ human culture onto these tic-numbers so as to tear it apart, Land believed, would allow him to complete what deconstruction could only gesture at in its endless cycles of philosophical titillation: It would dismantle the power institutionalized in language and sense, and open up a reliable communication line with something unknown – a pure material dispersion not preprocessed by models derived from the past.

...

For Land, such theoretical propositions were also machines for excitation, devices to meld with and accelerate the planetary intensification that would finally allow the ‘body without organs’ to shed its human skin. If Philosophy thereby becomes a species of hype (or ‘hyperstition,’ according to the CCRU’s neologism) then are Land’s detractors (now, as then) right to say that his outlook is ultimately indistinguishable from a passive acceptance of a ‘neoconservative’ agenda – that his theoretical advocacy of the ‘acceleration’ of the capitalist process, in practice, simply endorses the maintenance of capitalist power structures rather than their dismantling (whether revolutionary or ameliorative)?

Nothing human makes it out of the near-future.

[...]

Garbage time is running out.

Can what is playing you make it to level 2?

so the way i described the human hierarchy in such a world is tres old-world. humans and humanity are shed. in this piece land's potential "neoconservativism" afaict relies on this divine birth/radical deconstruction not happening -- or at least not happening yet? i might think that chasing such an apotheosis of capital is going to create a prison-world even if it's successful tho? idk?

(second quote block there -- "nothing human makes it out" etc -- is land not mackay)

yeah afaict land's thing is we (or 'intelligence') have to escape this planet, and we can't do that if democracy doesn't fall, because it makes people stupid and gives power to the wrong ones. basically the singularity and a return to 19th century heroic/intellectual/colonial values are by nature the same. or something

funny he was such a cheney-ist pro war kind of guy when bush was in office. which makes his turn away from neoconservatism and towards austrian economics, the old right and racism look pretty cynical after all that fell apart -- after obama, after the housing crash.

xp and if you wanna read land tie the capitalist-genetic singularity fetish thing in with just reams and reams of hot takes on trayvon martin and john darbyshire (+ with moldbug's aesthetic stroke of subbing in the evocative word Cathedral anyplace nixon would have said Establishment) here u go

hah i didn't know that website existed

Probably not a good idea to stare directly at the Moldbug

ilx policy is actually to ban anyone who talks about moldbug in order to prevent the possibility of bringing him into being

hey so goole/dlh --- since you guys seem to make the occasional foray onto these guys' home turf: do you ever get the sense that they're out there reading the equivalent lefty literature/writing? maybe this is just too much time on ilx, but i do get the sense that a lot of ppl here actually go out there and read the horrible primary sources of the right, whereas i've never really thought that the right does likewise

Probably some of them are reading left-accelerationist material so they can argue against it?

I don't get the impression that they're reading left wing media like counterpunch or jacobin but yes NYT WPost as emblematic of "liberalism" - they are opposed to mainstream liberalism not to far left radicalism which is only on their radar insofar as they conflate it w the mainstream.

well we are all totally immersed in the ridiculous lie that is the progressive worldview, the virus that ate america when jefferson's continent-of-monticellos didn't happen, so they would prob say that they are exposed to the equivalent just by going to school/talking to anyone. but no they prob don't read jacobin or whatever? xp hah yeah what mordy said.

This is a little off topic but I've noticed a big talking point on the right is that BLM has endorsed Hillary. They have trouble distinguishing between moderate liberalism and further left groups and get confused when you explain that such orgs are freq opposed to Dem "neoliberalism" and will likely vote 3rd party.

(otoh land as a philosophy prof in the 90s was presumably better-acquainted w the state-of-the-art than i am xp)

the jewish right-wing has a similar issue. like they keep conflating the anti-israel flag burners outside the DNC with the DNC itself - missing the point that they were outside the convention hall bc they are not a part of the Dem coalition.

gotcha, that makes sense

mostly curious because it seems like lefties here (myself included) have a certain grotesque fascination with the alt-right (hence this thread), and i've never seen the equivalent (unless it's someone who abandoned the radical left and made an about face)

They have trouble distinguishing between moderate liberalism and further left groups

yeah this as you say is a problem all over the right -- from now-squishy old-guard stuff like NRO to hardcore trump fans/demon-summoners. feels weird to keep mentioning nixon as he wasn't a "political philosopher" or anything but he more than anyone else is who i think of when i read this stuff. the perception that everyone to your left, from the wapo to mao, is smooshed into a big malevolent world-dominating ball of wrongness and perversity.

idk at least in a social media sense there's some contact between the irony rude left and the bizarro right, at least the more self-aware people in it (not clowns like milo or the hapless pickup guys).

anti-hillary and anti-centrist writers, vice's michael tracey as an example, get a lot of traction over there. that said i'm not certain what mtracey's politics are...

Isn't Glenn Beck obsessed with Marxism and Fabian socialism? He had the leader of a minor socialist third party on his show once.

He preferred him to Obama because at least he was honest about his socialism.

Holy shit, the Dave Aurini dude wrote a book! It is naturally set in post-apoc Ontario

http://www.castaliahouse.com/review-as-i-walk-these-broken-roads-by-d-m-j-aurini/

And this is a stolen joke, but somebody elsewhere pointed out that post-apoc = SKULLZ

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNn-M8TUAAAPg3U.png

https://mobile.twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/637820321526095872

idk at least in a social media sense there's some contact between the irony rude left and the bizarro right, at least the more self-aware people in it

this is interesting; my understanding of modern vanguard politics is prob totally crippled by not being on twitter tbh. are anti-neoliberal leftists sometimes considered as fellow critics of the cathedral? or like of parts of it? or

when useful i've even seen st0rmfr4nt posters quote the intercept approvingly

goole doing quality work here as usual

cf https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=theintercept.com+stormfront.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#safe=off&q=theintercept+site:stormfront.org (would link to sf direct but idk if this thread is deindexed yet?)

gonna take yr word for it

it's not a difficult thing to google

a) this is not the best conclusion to draw imo
b) check those likes

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/783994097912741888

a couple rouge billionaires

thought he was orange

Split the diff, call him a sickly salmon hue?

gotcha, that makes sense

mostly curious because it seems like lefties here (myself included) have a certain grotesque fascination with the alt-right (hence this thread), and i've never seen the equivalent (unless it's someone who abandoned the radical left and made an about face)

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Thursday, October 6, 2016 12:44 PM (thirty-six minutes ago)

might be a bit biased but i tend to think people on the left are a bit more intellectually curious than those on the far right

plus we're cucks

i tried to read that moldbug DE blogpost and it was utterly insane and incomprehensible. i'm an ex-catholic, and he started out making his case by making up completely nonsense gibberish about catholicism. ok, maybe it's dated badly, the "pope" he's talking about is benedict and progressives are MUCH more favorably disposed towards francis than they were towards benedict, but even if i mentally displace francis as "pope" in my head with benedict, it's nonsense. he's trying to convince me that he understands progressivism by failing to understand the catholic church.

my sense is that many in the alt-right - and not exclusively the alt-right - are highly creative lunatics. you know, when i was growing up the lunatics were, well, pretty boring people. they would talk to you about how rock and roll was the devil's music, about fluoridation, about communism.

and the alt-right are not like this in that they can come up with a new bizarre thought pattern every five minutes. this is REWARDED. this is CREATIVITY. reminds me of henry ford and his anti-semitism. a guy like oculus rift guy, he gets rich for "thinking outside the box", and he has no incentive to ever stop doing it.

and i can relate to them because, ok, i say some pretty crazy shit, though i've learned to stop saying most of it on the internet. i think some pretty crazy shit. how do you argue with me when i'm saying crazy shit like that? you can't. it's a weird kind of reactionary ideology in that it's post-rational. once you start believing in the singularity or the matrix or whatever, your little brain can come up with all kinds of fevered delusions, and "talking sense" into them is not an option.

we're afraid of them, they're afraid of women and non-whites

they're also afraid of not being the best ones

I don't think I've come across this. Good to know before I accidentally hate-punctuated something, although they really shouldn't be allowed to get away with taking punctuation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses

"For non-antisemitic punctuation marks, see bracket."