IDK if this should go here or in lounge or maybe even in technology but anyway. What is "weird theory",
theory that is outside of the mainstream of academia typically enjoyed by very online types. The arch weird theorist being Nick Land. Anything from the accelerationist milleu or something tangentially related to it, or other niches rejected by the academy (eg spinal catastrophism, late Baudrillard, unironic Posadism, Mainländer just to name some random things). Hopefully if we remain respectful we can avoid getting rule sevened.
Anyways, pertinent to denpa-chan ideologically, anyone read Cute Accelerationism by Amy Ireland and Maya B. Kronic?

outside the mainstream of academia, typically enjoyed by very online types

I used to be into this stuff but it gets tiring. Sometimes you get brilliant people established in a small corner of academia who never get attention outside of that niche and generally get ignored and remain unpopular and relatively unknown. A lot of good theory gets ignored because it just isn't appealing to snobby academic normalfags or internet dwellers. Even ideas have to obey a market logic and a lot of stuff that's popular seem like its meant to tell people what they want to hear.

anyone read Cute Accelerationism by Amy Ireland and Maya B. Kronic?

No. I'm tired of the accelerationist trend. I remember Amy Ireland from the whole xenofeminist project. Didn't like it. I don't wanna be dismissive, but it looks like another one of those style over substance books.

Paul Virilio feels pretty pertinent to denpa, except he sees speed as a bad thing.

Karl Marx didn't knew\wrote about about AI, neither Deleuze.

Anyways, pertinent to denpa-chan ideologically, anyone read Cute Accelerationism by Amy Ireland and Maya B. Kronic?

maybe that's good book to buy

call me, when you will able to upload your mind in to multiple bodies with embedded qpu.
*and when ^ they will be affordable to mere mortals, average human on earth.

>>4

call me, when you will able to upload your mind in to multiple bodies with embedded qpu.

to the extent that it's possible, it's already the case. To any further extent, it will never happen because the brain is not a computer.

People already use digital storage to store memorable information. People's identities are now bound to their social media accounts. So in a sense, a person's self is spread across electronic devices. This isn't literally uploading your mind, but its close enough.

>>6
don't you love that the majority of your digital self is owned by corps

░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░
░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒░░░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░▒▓▓▓▓██▓█████████████████▓▓▓▓▒▒░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▓▓▓▓███████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓███▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓█▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░▓▓▓▓▓▓███▓█▓▓▓█▓█▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒░░░░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░
░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓█▓▓▓█▓▒▓█▓▓▓█▓▓▓██▓▓▓██▓██████▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▒░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓█▓▓▓▓▓█▓█▒▓▓▓▒░▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███▓███▓█████████████████▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓█▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▒░▒▓█▓▓▒▓▒▓▓██████▓█▓▓▓█████████████▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓█▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▒▒░░░▓█▓▒▒▒▓█▓█████▓▓░░░▒▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░▒▓▓█▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▒░░░░░░▓░░▒█▓█▓▓███▓▒░░░ ░▒▒▓▒▓▓▒░░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▒▒░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░
░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░▓▓█▓▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒███▓▒░ ░░░░ ░░░▒░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▓░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓██▓▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓███▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓███▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░░░░▓███▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░▒████▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓███▓▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒█████▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▓█▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓████▓███▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓███████▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▒░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓█████▓████▓▒▒▒░░░▒▓███████████▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒█████▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░
░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░▒▓▓█████▓██████▓▓▒▒▒▓█████████████░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░░▒███▒░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▒░░░ ░░░
░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░▒▓███████████████████████████████▓▒░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░░░▓▓░░░░░▒▓▓▓▓█▓░ ░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▓███████▓██████████▓████████████▓▓▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░░▒▓▓█▓█▓▓░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓████▓███▓███████████████████▓█▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▒▒▒▓▓▓████▓▒░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓▒▓██▓███████████████████████▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓█████▒░░░░░░
░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓███▓▓██████████████████▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░░░▒▓▓████▒░░ ░░░
░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓███████▓██████████████▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░▒▓████░ ░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓█████▓▓█████████████▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓██▒░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓████▓██████████▓███▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒░░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒███▓▓████████▓▓▓▒███▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░░▒▓▓███▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒██▒▒▓███████▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░
░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░░▒▒▒▓████▒░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓█▓▓▓█▓▒▒▓▓░▒▒▒▒▓▓▓█▓▓▓░▓▒░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░
░░░ ░░░░░░░░░▒▒░▒▓█████░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█▒▒▓▓▓▓░▒░▓▓█▓▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▓██▓██▓▒▒░▒░░░░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░
░░░░ ░░░░░▒░░░▓███████░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▓▓▓░░░░░▒██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒███▓█▓▒▓▒░░▒░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓████████░░░░░░▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▒░░░░░░▒█▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒░███▓▓▓███▓▒▒░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░ ░░░░░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░░ ░░░ ░░░


Marx was wrong. The working class will achieve nothing. NEETs will be the revolutionary class!

>>8
Normies become r/antiwork democratic socialists because they want to spend more time off work with their hecking pupperinos, while NEETs derive leftism from second order principals

>>9
Democratic socialist is the lamest name for a mild Neo Keynesian. Most NEETs are too static. They stay in one place. The coming collapse of the system will be driven by mobile populations, wandering unemployed dromomanics who roam the streets, the military proletariat turned mercenaries, diasporic laborers who can’t stay in one country, and jihadists and net dwellers who, like capital, go global without being tied down to one territory like labor. The old proletariat and the average NEET are too locked down in once place to cause enough chaos. Counterrevolutionaries win by nailing us in place and emptying the streets.

>>10
(not who you were replying to btw) I'm not totally against this idea, but it definitely goes against the reasons marx identified the proletariat as the revolutionary class rather than any other class. Look at what he said about the peasants in the 18 brumaire,
"The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France's poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homonymous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes."
Does your revolutionary class not also suffer similar issues? The proletariat in marx's day were geographically concentrated and worked shoulder to shoulder as a highly organised mass, and this was the precise tendency that marx thought would enable them to organise for revolution. How can these socially isolated and geographically distributed groups you point to hope to form a coherent mass?

>>11
Marx was wrong about a lot of things. We shouldn’t generalize his view of peasants. In history, nomads and peasants have always rioted and invaded the cities. The Syrian revolution was a very rural revolt. Look what happened in Afghanistan, what’s going in the Sahel right now. Are peasants really static or is that just a stereotype? I’ve known peasants who commute to do prole jobs in the city and go back to their fields. Peasants and tribesman rely on their kinship network to rally and resist. Marx never appreciated rural life. He looked down on it like many high modernist thinkers.

There is no need to form a coherent mass. You only need enough people to crash the system. The idea of a whole class wide collective mobilization with a clear leadership and organization is a thing of the past, probably never happened. Iran or Syria is the post-modern revolution. Am amorphous mass of unemployed curb dwellers, peasants, Bedouin tribesman, roving jihadists, aimless wanderers, some organized, some disorganized, but none of it centrally planned. Their battlefield were the streets, highways, and lanes, not factories and workplaces. They didn’t know what they wanted, beyond death to the Shah, to Assad etc. there was no vanguard party. What held them together was speed and motion and what put them in motion and kept the motor going was a revolutionary spirituality.

>>12
I think you just made a point against yourself here. This "amorphous mass" of lumpens, religious zealots, and nationalists form a reactionary force. When they revolt, they don't revolt for their own self-abolition. They may create "death to the Shah", but nothing further. Terrorism, adventurism, whatever you want to call it just reproduces bourgeois democracy, "regime change", not the abolition of regimes. As you said, throughout history nomads and peasants have rioted and invaded the cities. Rarely have they won. They are in a mutual relationship. The invention of the city / state created the nomadic raider, the nomadic raider can't destroy cities as a form because she relies on them, she only exists in so far as she exists in relation to them. "Crashing the system", a physical DDOS attack, pure negation, the server comes back up the second the attack stops. The unemployed curb dweller also requires a curb, and a job to not go to.

This isn't to say I disagree completely, Marx was a high modernist, he did look down on the peasants while taking the form of their communes as his base. I also think he is too harsh on the lumpens, that he valorizes "labor". But still, I'm not sure he can be completely thrown away so easily.

>>13
Reactionary is a meaningless buzzword. Yes, the result is often not what Marxists want, but that’s because Marxists are wrong and their goals are not actually desirable for most ordinary people, including their beloved working class. Today, the nation-state model faces unprecedented crisis and anyone who knows Chinese history knows your claims about peasants and nomads is false. Nomads are not defined by the city. They are defined by their movement. Regardless, the “revolutionary class” is not the traditional salaried proletariat who are locked down to one territory, but roving and mobile populations that the global system rapidly produces. The result will not be the old progressivism, that relic of the 19th and 20th century which leftists continue to peddle. It might not even lead to a whole new system, but a kind of apocalypse where new formations are built amid the ruins or zones where control has collapsed and hybrid forms of life created. The global state system is constantly challenged by tribes armed with automatic weapons, insurgent colonies, and cybernetic communities, international networks of roving terrorists, drug cartels etc. these may not lead to ideal outcomes, but something is changing clearly.

Key to revolt now is movement and speed. Those in power today know this well. It’s why ID cards, visas, passports, racial hierarchies, gender identities exist. The construction of movement and time. Similarly, life can be sped up to a rapid rate to keep the fixed position proles busy, as in Amazon warehouses. But the key things they want to control are the comings and goings of outsiders, the flow of footfall on the streets, the dozens of ‘unproductive’ wanderers that roam around. The Taliban won in Afghanistan because they conquered the asphalt and were faster than both the Americans and their local stooges. The offensive that toppled Assad exploited the law of speed, made the roads and highways its target and its foot soldiers were the mobile masses. The challenge for those in power today is to control the flow of populations and regulate their speed while moving faster than their adversaries.

>>14
I promise I don't mean this as a dig at you:
Since you are backing drug cartels and theocrats, do you also view the present right wing nationalist movements in the US and europe as potential revolutionary subjects? If reactionary is just a meaningless buzzword, and what you want is real movements that are actively disrupting the nation state, well clearly everything from the level of far right militias to trump's disruption of global trade are doing that, knowingly or not. They also, unlike marxist movements, have broad support from "ordinary people".

Do the modern billionaires not also conform to your ideal of a "roving and mobile population"? They are international, sailing between countries and tax havens, mingling with each other as "global citizens", with money in a million distributed off shore. What about remote workers, so called digital nomads, are they also revolutionary subjects, or does their economic position preclude them?

Although I've been arguing mostly from a marxist perspective I'm pretty far from agreeing with the marxist orthodoxy (i guess i'm begrugingly something like a post-marxist). As I understand it, you're saying that going back into history from the earliest state formations, the nomadic populations have always been in revolt against the state, and that although nomads have been suppressed in modern times, the modern state system is somehow producing a new mass of nomads who are increasingly left behind by the sedentary state. I'd be curious to know more about how you see the mechanism by which this is happening. Which theorists are you pulling from with this language about movement and speed, it sounds interesting. I'd also like to challenge something, is it possible that you are reproducing capitalist logic with an insistence on speed and efficiency and short time preference in your focus on out-speeding the state? I see a focal point of resistance in people who slow down. Lazy workers who slow the production line, the slowness of the internet outside of corpo control, the slowness of communication and travel outside of ecologically destructive technology and infrastructure. Maybe you're more just arguing for different usages of time rather than one particular tempo over another, I'm not sure if i'm reading you correctly here.

movement of the nomad comes from somewhere. typically, and most destructively it comes from the failings of food production -> labor shortage of a city. there were of course nomadic forms before cities but this movement was to follow hunting patterns, or put another way a systemic failing of again food production (just because there had never been a successful food production system before that point doesn't negate that)
there is some amount of aesthetic posturing going on here. defining problems based on how they manifest rather than their cause. the manifestation of movement isn't the problem. it may be that it is the object of focus by the powers that be (because they like both 13 and 14 are fixated on the manifestations rather than their root motivators) but then it becomes clear that a successful resistance to this can not manifest in that same way.
if they are looking for movement and speed, be slow.

>>15
I want to be clear that I’m not backing anyone, just spitballing and trying to get a perspective on the situation. This question or who is a ‘real’ revolutionary or not isn’t very interesting to me because I don’t agree with Marxism. In the 1920s and 30s, fascists successfully mobilized war veterans, unemployed people on curb corners, and took over the streets while their leftist rivals were fixated on factories. I guess you could find parallels between that and the American far right? I don’t know much about them. I’m not endorsing them.

Do billionaires not also conform to your ideal of a “global and roving population”?

Yes but I don’t think that’s new. Marx pointed it out. Capital has always been global whereas labor has been tied down, but that has changed. Colonialism and then globalization are motors that have spun up a whole class of mobile people on the lower end of the social ladder who are diasporic like immigrant laborers, war refugees, part timers, unemployed urbanites, military and ex-military, so-called digital nomads etc. these have a very different class position to the billionaires. What makes them different from the traditional fixed proletariat is their precariousness, they can always be out of a job, deported, loose their home etc. These roving masses are both a necessary source of labor but also a source of fear for those in power. People from this population bracket have been behind some of the major crises of our times e.g. 9/11

is it possible that you are reproducing capitalist logic with an insistence on speed and efficiency and short time preference in your focus on out-speeding the state? I see a focal point of resistance in people who slow down

Virilio warns us about accelerating speed and laments it while Baudrillard seems to celebrate it(?). The dictatorship of high speed compels us to accelerate and those who fail to keep pace get left behind. There’s a virtue in slowing down but turning it into a tactic of resistance can be difficult e.g lazy workers are simply fired and easily replaced, scientists who fail to publish on time perish etc. Now I’m not saying uncontrolled high speed is good (even if it can be fun), but to challenge modern states and armies you have to out run and out maneuver them. I guess the Taliban are an outlier here because they (like all good guerrillas) forced the high tech American army to slow down, controlling the tempo of battle.

I don’t make any claims about an eternal battle between nomads and cities or whatever. The state as we know it today is barely a few centuries old.

>>16
There isn’t a single type of nomadic lifestyle or a single cause for nomadism. Since societies are made up of human bodies in motion, speed has always been an integral element of society. The control and manipulation of speed and motion is crucial to all modern forms of social control.

>>15
I want to be clear that I’m not backing anyone, just spitballing and trying to get a perspective on the situation. This question or who is a ‘real’ revolutionary or not isn’t very interesting to me because I don’t agree with Marxism. In the 1920s and 30s, fascists successfully mobilized war veterans, unemployed people on curb corners, and took over the streets while their leftist rivals were fixated on factories. I guess you could find parallels between that and the American far right? I don’t know much about them. I’m not endorsing them.

Do billionaires not also conform to your ideal of a “global and roving population”?

Yes but I don’t think that’s new. Marx pointed it out. Capital has always been global whereas labor has been tied down, but that has changed. Colonialism and then globalization are motors that have spun up a whole class of mobile people on the lower end of the social ladder who are diasporic like immigrant laborers, war refugees, part timers, unemployed urbanites, military and ex-military, so-called digital nomads etc. these have a very different class position to the billionaires. What makes them different from the traditional fixed proletariat is their precariousness, they can always be out of a job, deported, loose their home etc. These roving masses are both a necessary source of labor but also a source of fear for those in power. People from this population bracket have been behind some of the major crises of our times e.g. 9/11

is it possible that you are reproducing capitalist logic with an insistence on speed and efficiency and short time preference in your focus on out-speeding the state? I see a focal point of resistance in people who slow down

Virilio warns us about accelerating speed and laments it while Baudrillard seems to celebrate it(?). The dictatorship of high speed compels us to accelerate and those who fail to keep pace get left behind. There’s a virtue in slowing down but turning it into a tactic of resistance can be difficult e.g lazy workers are simply fired and easily replaced, scientists who fail to publish on time perish etc. Now I’m not saying uncontrolled high speed is good (even if it can be fun), but to challenge modern states and armies you have to out run and out maneuver them. I guess the Taliban are an outlier here because they (like all good guerrillas) forced the high tech American army to slow down, controlling the tempo of battle.

I don’t make any claims about an eternal battle between nomads and cities or whatever. The state as we know it today is barely a few centuries old.

>>16
There isn’t a single type of nomadic lifestyle or a single cause for nomadism. Since societies are made up of human bodies in motion, speed has always been an integral element of society. The control and manipulation of speed and motion is crucial to all modern forms of social control.

Adorno and Horkheimer are the ultimate blackpill. I can't enjoy any form of pop culture now.

>>7
i love the way that looks on my screen
https://files.catbox.moe/bc0g0a.png

>>19
definitely a blackpill, but the ultimate blackpill? Even in the realm of political philosophy Baudrillard is more blackpilling, and then there's the entire world of philosophical pessimism more broadly, from schopenhaur to ligotti and so on.

>>21
Baudrillard isn't that blackpilling. I guess his metaphysics has disturbing implications for Western culture and theory, but if you come from some other background its more of an opportunity. I've never seen him as much a political philosopher because he claims society is dead so by extension politics is also gone.

>>22
well that's my point, it's blackpilling from the perspective of killing politics. But maybe if you can take the sufficiently ironic viewpoint that he does then it's not so nihilistic.

>>23
Baudrillard declares emancipatory leftist politics is dead and critique is exhausted. I agree with him. I don't think that's nihilistic, more like clearing the way to start something new. He probably wouldn't have believed in anything could be new but whatever. Baudrillard at least thinks we can have fun. Adorno is much more depressing.

There is no good feminist theory anymore? Its all garbage. Care ethics seems to be dying, strangled by a vulgar Butlerism which poisons everything. Feminist theory, queer theory all of it is trash. Decolonial theory is post-colonialism recycled, adds nothing new. Critical theory is no longer critical, but a masturbation cult where the goal is suck up to progressivism and bash conservatives and ordinary people who are by default always fools. Snide cultural elitism to support causes that are apriori taken to be good but never examined. This is NOT what Horkheimer meant by critical theory.

>>25
perhaps emancipatory leftist politics is dead and critique is exhausted :^)

kill this thread please

anyone read that book cyclonopedia or whatever it's called? is it worth reading?

>>28
The story behind the book is more interesting than its content. Cyclonopedia is basically an uninspired epistolary horror novel with a mystery narrative that's been done to death already. What makes it different is the Landian CCRU writing style, which feels forced. So it belongs to the weird fiction genre but its not as good as a House of Leaves or a Southern Reach. Often it just reads like a shitty academic paper with an insufferable lack of self-awareness. So if you like Landtard stuff you might like it, otherwise its a waste of time.

The author, Reza Negarestani, has since disowned the book and the whole post-Deleuzo-Guattarian Landian acclerationist scene. He also fired Land from his last teaching position for constantly ranting about tranns and immigrants in class. Nagarestani now seems like a very run of the mill academic philosopher.

>>26
I doubt the left was a genuinely emancipatory project to begin with. Its just a cult at this point. Its funny how the leading figures of the left were always from bourgeois or aristocrat backgrounds. Marx's communism is just an elitist fantasy and these days leftists are becoming more and more indistinguishable from right wingers.

>>30
The bourgeois are and will always be substantially more educated and discliplined than most people in the working class. Any revolution must neccessarily be led by aristocrats, rather than self-centered people from the working-poor (see: Joseph Stalin.) The poor are not motivated by truly liberatory or emancipatory aims. They merely want the things that the rich have. These are not revolutionary ideals. I am not a Marxist, personally, I believe in social-democracy. But I think there a lot of Marxists would agree with me on this. If they put away all the cult-y language surrounding the HEROIC working class or w/e.

>>30
Every vision for society that has ever been designed by anyone has start as a fantasy by a member of the elite. You're not saying anything by mentioning this.

well that's actually happened around 1910, that intelegentsiya knew how to read and write, with anarchists, libs & co did the job, soon for power to be taken from them by 1 particular party.

the more interesting questions if whether Brits funded Marx? I've heard they provided asylum for him of some sort. And why Marxism has not been established widely in UK ? but remained an export product.
like you know, socialists-republicans came to power across europe, in France, Germany, USA.
but monarchy prevailed in some places like UK, Spain, Netherlands, Scandinavia.

it also could have been prevailed & saved in russia in theory. they do have modern monarchist movements, party & tv channel (csar grad).

>>31
What's the standard of education we are using? Ask a bourgeois rich kid to change a car tire or turn a jack. Those fuckers don't even know how to shovel. The elite (not all of them are rich) simply use the idea of emancipation to manipulate the poor. Leftist politics (Marxism, social democracy etc) is just an attempt to create guilt free exploitation that will deepen the control of those in power over the proletariat.

>>32
Your telling me that ordinary people don't have fantasies about how an ideal world should look? This is just empirically false.

Marxists proclaim to be atheists until they see a factory or a warehouse, then they get on their knees and repeat the holy mantra. Work or die, they say, just like the capitalists.

>>35
this is a person you've invented in your head

>>34
You can't lump social democracy and Marxism in the same category. Look up the countries that rank the highest on democracy in the world, the lowest in terms of corruption, they are all social democracies. The point is not to create new avenues of exploitation, rather to do the opposite. It is to create additional checks and balances.

>>36

”he who does not work, shall not eat” and “work is the duty of every citizen” - 1918 Bolshevik constitution of Russia, Article 2, Chapter 5, .18

They not only took a saying from the Bible and misinterpreted it as literal. They actually hardcoded it as law. Only “productive” individuals will be allowed access to basic articles of consumption, even food. And work is a duty. So instead of whoring your body out to the capitalist for some money so you can live and guy buy stuff, otherwise go rot or live free if your rich, it’s your duty as a citizen to work for the state. Work work work. Because work is good. Be a good Stakhanovite drone and meet your quota and one day something beautiful will happen. Lies.

>>37
Social democracies are just totalitarian states by any other name. They don’t even count as weird theory. I wouldn’t even call them democracies and what does the social part even mean? It’s the most boring generic thing. Not even weird.

>>36

”he who does not work, shall not eat” and “work is the duty of every citizen” - 1918 Bolshevik constitution of Russia, Article 2, Chapter 5, .18

They not only took a saying from the Bible and misinterpreted it as literal. They actually hardcoded it as law. Only “productive” individuals will be allowed access to basic articles of consumption, even food. And work is a duty. So instead of whoring your body out to the capitalist for some money so you can live and guy buy stuff, otherwise go rot or live free if your rich, it’s your duty as a citizen to work for the state. Work work work. Because work is good. Be a good Stakhanovite drone and meet your quota and one day something beautiful will happen. Lies.

>>37
Social democracies are just totalitarian states by any other name. They don’t even count as weird theory. I wouldn’t even call them democracies and what does the social part even mean? It’s the most boring generic thing. Not even weird.

>>38
it is nice that you noticed that they quoted Bible.
Koba had christian theological education.
I'm not even saying that many socialists, marxists, in central & western europe come from judeochristian backgrounds.
But what options other than work, you have?

Social democracies are just totalitarian states by any other name.

is Sweden such? do you equalize it with Birma?

so Accelerationism is literally Human Instrumentality project, replacing us with robots? (that may or may not form hive)

>>40
It didn't come from Koba but from Lenin who was paraphrasing Paul. Lenin seems to have misread the quote entirely. Paul was talking about ethical action as in good deeds will bear fruit. Lenin seem to see it as a literal principal that those who fail at work shouldn't eat. Combining this with the classical economists labor theory of value, and the result is a cult of working. You see this with Marxists idolizing factory work despite most of them not working a day in their lives. Marxism is a failed pseudo-theology. The result is the same, work to death under capitalism to buy that mcmansion and SUV, work to death under Marxist socialism to build Marxist socialism.

is Sweden such? do you equalize it with Birma?

Why do 'authoritarian' states invest so much in independent judiciaries and propping up civil institutions? At the same time, democratic states engage in widespread torture, rendition, and extrajudicial killing, but nobody calls them 'authoritarian.' Sweden, Burma, US etc. are all totalitarian bureaucratic states where humans are reduced to instruments and statistics to be fed into national economies. Sure, we might prefer to live in one more than the other, but they aren't that different.

>>41
Enlightenment was the human instrumentality project. Humans will be replaced by machines because of increasing speed demands we move faster but now we are reaching physical human limits. Automation being adopted in those area where humans are seen as too slow to keep up. Accelerationism is redundant the world is already running at breakneck speed and we are too slow to keep up.

Soviet leaders did not live in the opulent mansions that are the commonplace residences of presidents, prime ministers and monarchs in most of the world’s capitals (Parenti, 1997). Gorbachev, for example, lived in a four-family apartment building. Leningrad’s top construction official lived in a one-bedroom apartment, while the top political official in Minsk, his wife, daughter and son-in-law inhabited a two-bedroom apartment (Kotz and Weir, 1997). Critics of the Soviet Union accused the elite of being an exploiting ruling class, but the elite’s modest incomes and humble material circumstances raise serious doubt about this assessment. If it was indeed an exploiting ruling class, it was the oddest one in human history.

>>43
Who cares how they lived? Its the consequences for ordinary people. Marxists created a work obsessed society. They failed to deliver on their promises and still do.

>>43
who are you even talking to, no one made that claim. Whether or not Gorbachev lived in a mansion has no baring on the degree to which marxism reduces people to their labor power.
>>41
No, because that was still the "human" instrumentality project. Landian accelerationism does away with humans entirely. To summarize extremely fast skipping over a lot, techno-capitalism is ultimately held back due to it's reliance on human desire, therefore it's end goal can only be to produce desire without humans aka AI. Once capital can function without humans, by producing it's own desire, it will have no need for us any longer and "nothing human makes it out of the near future". If you think that sounds unpleasant, you're a "transcendental miserabilist".

>>45
Land was already late to the party. Accelerationism is redundant because we are all accelerationists already and have been so for many decades now since the dramatic revolutions in speed. Land’s thinking is too linear. He’s just taken transhumanism and made it dark and hyper pessimistic but he suffers from the same optimistic linear mentality.

>>46
I fully agree, he's far too optimistic, he even has his "cosmic libertarianism". All in all it's a lot of edgy anti-humanist language placed on top of the same positive nietzschian life affirming romantic optimism.

One thing I hate about Land and his followers is the way this transhumanism seems to be a re-run of older 19th century Darwinist ideas of survival of the fittest and expand or die thinking. The growth of AI can only mean the extinction of humans, because of course a sentient being would obviously try to enslave or nuke other inferior beings. This reflects a colonial mindset. "The scraptards will do to us what we did to the Indians." As if that's a normal way to behave. Humans have always lived in a world filled with other beings and higher powers, Gods, angels, kami, spirits etc. many of them superior and more powerful than us. So what's threatening about sentient machines? The fact that Westerners (or secular humanists to be more specific) see sentient non-humans as a threat, tells you a lot about their warped colonizer worldview.

>>48
I think you misunderstand the genealogy of Land's thought.
Its pro-human-extinction-ism does not come from a "colonialist mindset" (this concept of "colonialist mindset" is not rooted in any materialist analysis) -- But rather, it originates through and engaging with the (anti-social-darwinist) Nietzschean concepts of ubermensch (overcoming of the human), the born-organizer, and the understanding of the relationship of will to power and creative energy with Thanatos and destruction (in this case the end of humanity).
[Nietzsche was a great critique of Herbert Spencer and social-darwinsim in general]

Not that there isn't a real discussion to be had on Nick Land and his concept of anti-humanist technological singularity; or that no critique can be made of him and his philosophy.

But to simply shove it aside by stamping the label: "colonizer mindset" is folly.

Besides, technological singularity in Land, unlike the higher powers you mentioned "Gods, angels, kami(?), spirits etc.", exists in an immanent sense, rather than transcendent. It is not simply an "higher power" in itself, but the manifestation of _will_ _to_ _power_. Would you consider the belief in the laws of physics and causality a belief in an "higher power"?
Also I'd not group "kami" and other animistic entities inside the "higher power" category. Since they are of the same "power" (principle/potency) as humanity.

>>49
What I mean is that transhumanism, even Land's dark twist on it, seems to reflect the imperial history of Western societies. There are entities, they constantly try to destroy each other to achieve supremacy, everything expands or dies so humanity must expand or die at the hands of other entities etc. what's missing from Land's version of this is homo sapien exceptionalism. And if you don't think the colonialist mindset isn't rooted in materialist analysis, I guess that's your way of saying it isn't real, then why bother demonstrating how Land's genealogy differs from a non-existent hypothetical?

exists in an immanent sense, rather than transcendent

Putting aside the immanence/transcendence duality, what I mean to point out is that Western and Westernized thinkers seem hysterically disturbed by the prospect of non-human intelligence, seeing such intelligences as inevitable rivals in a race war or potential threats to society. This is extremely unusual and I think it tells us a lot about this particular culture which, unfortunately, has come to dominate the world precisely through what it framed as inevitable race wars. This style of thought runs through Land's work as it does many other thinkers. Land makes lazy assumptions about how non-human entities will inevitably behave that reflect his background.

People seem to like Land for stylistic reasons, thinking he's pioneering some radically new type of thinking. Once you strip the flashy aesthetics and edge, you find a pretty flawed and generic thinker underneath.

>>50
Searx "bantu expansion". Chinese were doing Han supremacy while westoids were living in mud huts. Nothing about this mindset is western, and more importantly, it has nothing to do with Nick Land.
It really seems like you've tangentially heard some lesswrong talking points, and anyone who mentions "AI" must also think this right? I wonder why Land's PERSONIFICATION OF CAPITAL AS AN AI would behave according to CAPITALIST LOGIC. HMMMMMM. AN IMPOSSIBLE QUESTION TO ANSWER. MUST BE BECAUSE HE'S WHITE. Actual freezer temperature IQ third worldist

>>51
Sigh... so first there is no colonizer mindset and now your telling me that there is one but its not Western.

"bantu expansion". Chinese were doing Han supremacy while westoids were living in mud huts. Nothing about this mindset is western, and more importantly, it has nothing to do with Nick Land

False equivalence. Its curious that Westerners narrate history in terms of rising and falling races, nations, and ethnic groups, whereas for classical Chinese/Arab describe the cyclical rise and fall of dynasties. A latent feature of Western thought for the past three centuries is this racial 'clash' logic and it feeds into

I wonder why Land's PERSONIFICATION OF CAPITAL AS AN AI would behave according to CAPITALIST LOGIC.

Assuming capital is a sentient AI and it behaves according to its own logic, its still not clear that it will eradicate humans or that humans. In the West there's a deeply rooted fear of non-human intelligence. Western culture is built on the assumption that non-human intelligence does not exist unless it is produced by humans. If it did exist, it would be a racial threat to humans who must either control or defeat it. Of course, according to their own historical consciousness, Westerners prevailed by fighting and destroying a series of savage enemy races. Nick Land simply disagrees with the last part. He extends the 'expand or die' logic to humans, telling us humans will simply be rendered irrelevant by machines anyway.

The European Enlightenment made transgression a virtue. The more transgressive the speech, the sex act etc. the more pleasurable, freeing, and liberating for the self-defining individual. Land's philosophy just seems to be an extension of this established tradition to an extreme: the ultimate transgressive limit experience is self-destruction. So Land is really nothing more than an old fashioned liberal underneath.

>>52

so first there is no colonizer mindset and now your telling me that there is one but its not Western.

It was an other person that replied to you, just a fyi.

Does Mein Kampf count as weird theory? It was hard to get through because the author is insufferable. Its the kind of thing you’d expect an internet lolcow to write. What’s kinda funny though is Hitler literally tells you what he plans to do and for some reason people just thought “nah, he won’t do that he doesn’t mean it.”

I found a strange PDF on my computer called "tractatus logico-suicidalis". I don't remember downloading it like some kind of creepypasta. I haven't read it yet but the internet tells me the author left this book in place of a suicide note before dying by self inflicted overdose. It seems like a semi-fictionalized series of aphorisms on "suicidology", but again, I haven't actually read it yet. If that isn't weird theory I don't know what is.

>>55
I liked this one a lot. It was supposed to be an intro for a second book Proper Behavior for Suicides the author never ended up writing.

What a bunch of retarded niggas above

Read Marcus Aurelius, Stirner, Boehme, Zappfe -
to name a few

>>57
Out of all of these, Boehme seems like the only remotely interesting one. I'll add him to my list.

>>57
Marcus aurelius is not theory it's the ramblings of an out of touch teenager (which is kind of interesting in it's own right but should not be considered serious).
stirner was a meme for a while but honestly he's better than people give him credit for. plagiarized by nietzsche, and made marx seethe, kinda based.
Not heard of boehme before.
zappfe is good shit, last messiah is high quality.
that being said, I wouldn't count most of that as "weird" theory

>>57
Pretty good

>>59
Maybe "Melancology: Black Metal Theory and Ecology" or "KALI/ACC Basilisk" can can count as "weird", it's quety interesting and fit in it's term

I can't take those black metal clowns seriously. singing about burning churches in their clown make up lmao

>>61
A little less attitude and more focus on the subject matter might help.

What makes a theory weird?

>>63
impossible to understand

>>63
it's literally in the OP

theory that is outside of the mainstream of academia typically enjoyed by very online types

>>65
Does that include conspiracy theories, fringe science, Neo-Lysenkoism, Marxist-Leninism (still has its supporters sadly), primate liberationism, AIDS was made in a lab theory, antinatalism, JEWS, holocaust denial, and the idea that there may be an F7 on the Fujita scale but the CIA is hiding it from us?

>>66
I guess there's a distinction between "theory" in the sense of "critical theory / philosophy" versus "theory" in the sense of "conspiracy theory" which probably deserves it's own thread. Although there's obviously some crossover. I guess it is kind of vibes based.

I’ve been reading Sayyid Qutb lately. I don’t think there’s a single writer as badly maligned as him. Although he isn’t weird even if he has delusional internet fanboys.

>>67
Is there? I think there’s overlap between them. They are both highly suspicious and seek to reveal hidden truths that authorities try to hide. The difference is one is made by random people and the other by intellectual elites who are more likely to be taken seriously.

>>67
As I said, there's crossover. But just because there's a grey area in the middle that doesn't mean no distinction can be made. In this case the distinction is that theory is in conversation with a particular tradition, and is informed in content and style by that tradition.
As an example, most of Agamben's work definitely fits squarely in the "theory" category, but the second he started saying covid wasn't real, it was considered to step outside the bounds of acceptability. So there's definitely something to what you're saying here, in this instance a respected theorist can lose respect for having the wrong opinion. However, if you disagree with Ambagen's position, maybe it's perfectly reasonable to lose respect for someone who you think is just doing bad theory.

There are some comedians who write (in my opinion) unfunny jokes that are very edgy, and fall back on their edginess when they are accused of being unfunny. Using "you guys are just offended by my edgy humor!" to write off criticism that the jokes aren't funny.

What I'm getting at here is that there's some real effect at play here in which limits are imposed on what is acceptable to criticize in your "critical theory", but that fact in itself is not reason enough to dismiss the field, since there may be good reasons as to why certain limits should exist. I'm not sure where I stand personally on this matter, where I personally draw the line precisely. But I'm pretty confident that like, the critique of pure reason is on on one side and the protocols of the elders of zion is on the other side.

Coming back to what I said at the start, this relationship with a particular tradition is important because that tradition has certain practices, particularly in terms of intellectual rigor. There is an expectation that a work in this field holds to a certain standard. Although what's interesting is that what that standard is or should be is also a matter of discussion within the field which beholds to said standard. For example different literary forms of philosophizing, from greek dialog to aphorism to formal logic to deleuzian schizo rambling etc, none of these hold to each other's standard, and they're all in dialogue with others, making arguments for their own form from within that form. So I would like to see some theory written in the conspiratorial form which actually critically examines it's own form with respect to it's position within the broader tradition of theory and philosophy.

>>69
When I compare critical theory and conspiracy theory I don't mean to be dismissive. But isn't it interesting that both emerged in the same place and time (Euro-American societies in the 19th and 20th cen) and both share some overlaps? And this tigrowing suspicion. What critical and conspiracy theory share is the idea of critique: using your own reason, being independent, questioning the foundations of things, everything must have a reason, unmasking myth and false truths to reveal what's really going on. So I'm not sure the conspiracy form is actually different to what you find in critical theory, maybe just a different more layman's everyday variety of it. There are a lot of aesthetic differences between the two.

Generally, we think that criticism stands in opposition to authority. The stated goal of theorists is to reveal authority and speak truth to power. But at the same time, its authority figures who teach us to do critique (don't talk to strangers, watch out for fraud, report suspicious persons, beware of propaganda, follow the money trail). Often, critique is demanded by political authorities (do you condemn Hamas? etc). And of course, you can't unmask or challenge an authority if authority doesn't exist while authority figures encourage critical attitudes for its own ends. So it seems like critique and authority go together in a strange way enabling each other. Since traditions rely on authority, this means there will always be some things you can say and some things you can't.

Maybe 'critique' is a bad thing? Because now we live in a world where everybody seems too critical, too suspicious, and every single thing has to be given a reason or people are asked to validate themselves etc. So I wonder if the problem is that we only have one generic model for thinking about things (criticism) that has pushed other ones by the wayside? So maybe its not that conspiracy theorists need to be more critical, but we need to be less critical and find other ways of questioning things that aren't trapped in this weird Kantian thing we call criticism as the only way to think through a problem.

I think that in bnha the robots are all humans with extremely robotic quirks who have been forced into a slavery class by anthroform facism. when the kids do their test and blow up robots, the ones chosen are considered to have gone too far with their hatred of the anthroform masters, some having even gone as far as wanting to kill their masters.
this is tied into an extention theory that quirks are the result of nanomachine experiments in china that broke containment and infected the human population.

I wonder what Baudrillard would think or our current age of meme assassinations where literal nobodies become bigger martyrs than Jesus Christ and are worth more dead than alive. Debate bro gets whacked, nobody helps him. They all take out their phones or run. The media talks up some YouTuber like he’s Martin Luther King. Life has no meaning. Content is everything.

re: theory and conspiracy
https://trialofthepyx.substack.com/p/crediting-conspiracy

Sometimes I think the rise of AI can be a good thing because maybe bots would treat us better than the fucktarded govt

>>74
Low-quality rage bait

>>74
AI bot onslaught can only be done by those who have lots of computational power. Such computational power is not cheap. Whoever has the funds to maintain such a system, is able to control bots.

>>76
I guess it all depends on if AI could become independent and if it would choose to do the same thing as its makers.

Bataillefags, I picked up (stole) a copy of On Eroticism. The one by Penguin. Anyway, the back of the cover describes Bataille as "fervent Catholic." But I've always got the impression he hated religion? What the hell is going on?

this is so funny when lolicon fans trying to touch topics like philosophy etc

>>79
You have to go back.

>>79
foucault was arguably one of the biggest fans of that type of content, known to man!

>>81
Nah Foucault hated vaginas and loved being buttfucked by beefcakes

Xenofeminism is extremely stupid. Although, it’s unique that Hester sees lumpenproles as the most oppressed exploited class. Despite the cool aesthetic and wacky writing, the book plays on a set of familiar narratives. Another radical manifesto which is repackaged yesteryear’s radicalism. It was a fun read at least.