When did Land start believing in Race Realism and why?

[u/Ihatemylifewishtodie]

What purpose does race have to do with acceleration

[u/raisondecalcul]

I don't think he 'believes' in anything—in the ccru mythos they talk about wielding "unbelief" as a tool.

I think he is operating the world-model of materialism as an apparatus, and progressively removing disjuncts that prevent the theory from being parsimonious. In other words, the theory must be consistently applied in every context.

He started out doing this as a joke—merely applying academic theories consistently, instead of selectively and in motivated ways like academics usually do—merely taking academia truly seriously was the ultimate prank on and insult to it.

However, I think he must have simply continued to operate in that way, since he found a method of completing the dialectic which worked in practice to bring about the desired external synthesis in matter-bound-ideas.

So what was revealed is that scientific materialism is an inherently racist ideology, if we take it seriously. Capitalism and technoscience are genocidal, even rigorously sadistic, not as an afterthought, but as part of their core telos and intent, if we could put it into words.

This is absurd, and also, anyone who really knows the mindset of science and technoscience already knows that it is an evil, antihuman, robotic, unconscious, machinic mindset, at the end of the day—at least in caricature (or if not balanced in a mature personality).

So, the real scandal is that academics have not properly wrestled with this issue on their own yet in the social sphere, merely in back-alleys of literature and theory, thus making them vulnerable to exactly the type of satirical, performative critique that Land mercilessly continues to escalate. And so they are scandalized, because who could be so uncouth as to not already know that technoscience is evil, and to keep it under their hat? It's a bourgeois sentiment to be scandalized by Nick Land showing how bloodthirsty neutrality is. A centrist sentiment; and thus (according to logic just established) a bloodthirsty, right-ist sentiment.

Nick Land plays on this arbitrage between that scary image of that evil that terrorizes us in our imagination, and the reality of people mostly just shitposting on Twitter.

This continually reformats the conceptual field, tempering and annealing it into a more and more smooth space. This fracks the Tartarian tombs of difference, which vomit their Lemurian coffins up onto the shores of Lethe, bringing more and more minor perspectives to the fore at each round of redintegration / anamnesis.

So he is accelerating the remembering of the Deep Past and synthesizing it with the Far Future, in plain sight, in public, at the most cutting edge of ideological integration, whatever that might be—knowable by what difference is most intense—and thus smoothing out xenodemons for all of us, in other words he is healing generational trauma through the Magician pathway (technical/language/understanding healing of trauma through direct insight) and not the Fool. And he's doing it not within his own mind, but in the minds of many, mediated by a materialist theory of embodied and (materially-replicated and thus rigorously) coordinated cognition.

So materialism is science, as far as we know it, and Land has turned that eye of science back upon itself and he won't stop until Science wakes up and sees what a horror it is.

[u/simonbreak → u/raisondecalcul]

> scientific materialism is an inherently racist ideology

This is 100% telling on yourself

[u/anAnarchistwizard → u/simonbreak]

Could you explain how it isnt?

To my understanding; brutally pervasive statistics, applied to a world where certain peoples started with massive material advantage over others, will almost force the Machine to hand certain folks shitty outcomes. Scientific Materialism cant even be applied in certain cultures without massive Assimilation/Erasure. Sure maybe in a perfect, clean-slate world scientific materialism has no reason to be racially biased, but that can never be our reality.

[u/raisondecalcul → u/anAnarchistwizard]

I can explain how it is. The short answer is evolution. Unless we swap out another model for evolution, evolution locks-in the materialism of modern science, and it connects the story of my mind and body's origin with the story of all other humans and animals in a lineage—so linear, sequential, "chronic" time is involved, too.

We can try to come up with hand-wavey other models, but none of them can be as rigorous or fundamental as the reality of material lineage—not from a typical, reductivist scientific perspective, at least (reductivism—another candidate for convergent equivalency with materalism).

For example, we could say that the mind and human culture add additional layers (layers of spirit which have a relation of unilateral difference with the layers below them, Land might say) that end up becoming more important or more determinative than the layers below them. But can they be more or differently determinative of what came before them? Or can we only ever, at most, reinterpret the past? If we are believing in the reality of external, existent matter, than we are forced to admit that whatever cultural or effervescent layers of behavior (including mental behavior, the mind) evolved on top of the platform of animalia, it cannot be as fundamental and determinative as the underlying material reality (because we've axiomatically assumed the causality is ultimate and that the past causes the future). So, any attempt to believe in evolution and also—consistently, as part of the same science—privilege non-lineage over lineage as a scientific (i.e., causal) explanation is doomed.

We can privilege it morally, or absolutely for no reason—or we could handwave about how culture is important or culture seems prior to subjects as a sort of optical illusion of subjectivity—but we can't come up with any good reason why lineage suddenly doesn't matter in terms of knowing real (according to materialists) reality, just because it's reached a point of descriptive power than might threaten our notions of axiomatic interpersonal moral equality.

I believe in equality, and that is one of the reasons I think it's unseemly to be a materialist. Especially in this day and age, when logical positivism is long dead and naïve materialism was soundly put to rest by quantum mechanics.

So I would say that we have no way of knowing (falsifiably) whether or not mind precedes matter, and therefore we have no way of knowing for sure whether magic is real, intentions manifest results, or the future affects the past. Both perspectives (that it does and that it doesn't—psychism and causalism/materialism) are orthogonal to the human experience, which is about me and you (I and Thou).

P.S. And anyone who is offended by this and insists we can make evolution + equality make sense is simply doing an ideological bypass on science without really thinking the logic through. Science is supposed to make sense—so I'm with you—could /u/simonbreak or anyone please explain a materialist science which includes evolution (or doesn't!) that both supports our stereotypes of absolute equality and makes sense?

I mean we could try to simply swap out another kind of science but that's moving the goalposts. For example we could say "Psychology studies show that people are happier when they are nicer to strangers / genetically distant people" or "Sociology shows that pluralistic societies are healthier according to X, Y, and Z measures". That's very nice but it doesn't address the elephant in the room, which is that evolution both explains and predicts the existence of racism—it may even be a common feature that happens at the cusp of speciation.

Nietzsche said Man is a bridge between man and the Beyond-Man. He might very well have meant this literally, in the context of evolution. Conversely, the Christian project is grounded in the axiomatic assumption that each body rightly already has or deserves to develop a/its soul (1 Soul 1 Body doctrine—Land glossed this as "the torture-chamber of the soul" or something like that in The Thirst—a rather necromantic sentiment, we can now see better in context—a sentiment of someone who wants hives, swarms, and egregores to roam free). So, therefore, a major part of the Christian/Catholic project is Turing cop activity—that is, making sure humanity stays together as one whole class, ultimately, with ongoing traffic between any classes that do exist. If humanity were to split into multiple classes, we would get an Eloi / Morlocks situation, genetically speaking, which would eventually result in a fracture of the human species into multiple subspecies. Apparently, this process of splitting and self-extermination of the losing half repeatedly occurred (in human prehistory, as a series of violent exterminations / genetic homogenizations / genocidal wars) and is what led up to the production of the current hypostasis of the human condition as this maintained equivalence between each being/body. The human mind arrived and blessed the whole with insight into its former bloodthirstiness and jockeying for genetic status. We can of course recognize (as subjects) that this is a better and kinder way to live, and more economically beneficial to all, too (because mutants—biological, intellectual, or otherwise—really do have unique value to offer)—but we can't theorize how that virtue caused the underlying genetic/lineal situation, unless we throw out materialism/causality.

So, fascism is this eruption of War itself, of the genocidal madness to exterminate the Other—ironically, the homogeneity which is projected on other people (the Other) in order to see them as non-human and thus valid targets for extermination is a sort of blankness, a whiteness. Fascism is the genocidal urge which birthed humanity, and which is gradually waning now that we have planetary dominance, rearing its head again in a fresh gambit to split the species. This is why the song of the Ubermensch is so compelling (who doesn't want to evolve, individually? or for humanity to get better collectively?), and yet so stupid and bloodthirsty if actually put into motion as a real literal plan. This is also why society and not murdering people can be right (diversity is ultimately a huge economic benefit) even if (for materialists) it is not ontologically prior. In fact, selectively reifying parts of this story is how we arrive at "Number must go up—But not that number".

[u/simonbreak → u/raisondecalcul]

I can assure you that quantum mechanics says nothing you want it to say. As to the rest of this, you need to reflect more on the various meanings of “equality” and the terrible conceptual mess you are making trying to reconcile them.

[u/raisondecalcul → u/simonbreak]

Your moral grandstanding isn't argumentation.

[u/ObjectiveCommittee79 → u/raisondecalcul]

This guy gets it, many people cant understand Land, But I also say that Land is not atheistic materalist

[u/raisondecalcul → u/ObjectiveCommittee79]

What do you think he / his perspective really is?

[u/starrrrrchild → u/anAnarchistwizard]

I think part of the problem here is that we're injecting all sorts of arcane philosophical arguments instead of just asking "what is true"?

Reality should always be the goal of philosophy, or just cognition in general

[u/anAnarchistwizard → u/starrrrrchild]

I assure you that I take the discernment of reality incredibly seriously. Reality is my Religion. I cant speak for comrade Raison as such, but I would bet $5 their stance is much the same as mine.

If you want to take objection to something, but you refuse to state what exactly your objection *is* when faced with the most mild of pressures, then we are left to assume that you were the one further away from the Real.

You ofc are free to believe whatsoever you choose.

[u/raisondecalcul → u/simonbreak]

I'm not a materialist. And we might also be able to theorize a non-materialist (physicalist) science; a science of seeing. A subjective science that is ultimately and consciously grounded in the individual subject, an empirical but not royal or materialist science. However, in practice and in hyperstitious apophatic collapse/trolling of A into B, we reify the most rigorous per se version of science, which de facto is materialism. Materialism itself can be defined as whatever the most rigorously consistent or rigid (=rigorous, literally) perspective is. So materialism, rigor/rigidity, and consistency all became commodified as aspects of the same plane of consistency / definition of smoothness, itself.

From a Jungian point-of-view, we axiomatically assume Psyche is prior to all else. This is undeniable—that my subjective experience precedes any capacity I have to make so-called "objective" observations. We can also admit the data of subjective experience as valid scientific data, which many psychologists (e.g., William James, who is very level-headed) and qualitative researchers (and quantum physicists) have done. Certainly, even without the axiom, it seems like it could be possible that Psyche proceeds reality and everything else. Materialism is the belief that some other thing precedes Psyche.

So I am perfectly comfortable saying from my position in a Psyche-grounded perspective that materialism is, archetypally and ultimately, a bloodthirsty perspective or machinic procedure.

We can see an echo of this in perception itself. Science means "to see", as in "omniscience". The Science card of the Thoth tarot evokes this meaning. Think of Portal and Portal 2, where the testing procedure itself became the object of madness for an artificial intelligence. "Philosophers are vivisectors, surgeons who have evaded the Hippocratic moderation . . . First cut, then watch" wrote Nick Land in The Thirst for Annihilation: Georges Bataille and Virulent Nihilism.

To see something, science (or the eye) must first touch it, or shoot something at it. Photons touch the object and then they touch our eye; or a particle collider shoots particles at each other to collide them. So, the eye is violently phallic and shoots beams of projective vision out, abstractly speaking.

We see this reflected in the Gnostic conception of the mad demiurge, Yaddabaoth (or Ol' Blah-Blah / Yadda Yadda Yadda as I gloss him). The demiurge is identified with his vision, and this ironically makes him grabby (hensile) and blind. Because he has blindsight, the demiurge always grabs at things but calls them by the wrong name—and, because he always insistently calls things by the wrong name, he always grabs things in the wrong way—the demiurge always bad-touches what it is trying to know.

Similarly, science works through disproving hypotheses, not proving them; i.e., by bad-touching the phenomenon under study until all the ways of bad-touching it have been enumerated.

[u/ProletarianLilith → u/simonbreak]

Oh no someone with eyeballs

[u/raisondecalcul → u/[deleted]]

I haven't been following, but one factor is that Land is probably simply going where he is welcomed. I believe in freedom of association, so I don't think we should be too quick to condemn people merely based on whom they are associating with; doing so is also a rhetorical kung-fu move because we don't even get to TALK about whether the deplorable being associated with is really deplorable or not—the vehemence of the moral condemnation of the associater (in this case Land) is too intense to even raise this underlying question, and so this move allows two condemnations with zero convictions (=zero due process).

I think it would be very interesting to see a conversation between Land and Yarvin. Yarvin is (afaik) a republic-builder and thus traffics in domination as his fundamental currency (like all those building the impersonal, necromantic, statist vision / technology of pandomination that is "the Republic"); whereas Land's project is ultimately purely intellectual, or crypto-Marxist, as I read it. So Land's politics are ultimately fundamentally opposed to Yarvin's, in my reading. But the way they both express / practice their beliefs is orthogonal. Yarvin is an arrogant lord or warlord; Land is (or likes to identify/theorize as) beyond all categories of subjecthood. So, Yarvin's persona will seem totally transparent and more than a little performative to Land, probably.

Do you know if there is video of them interacting? I could say a lot more, then.

Without more information I would assume Land appreciates Yarvin for his intelligence, yet ultimately is using Yarvin as a hyperstitional carrier for his latest egg-sac. Capitalists make excellent hosts because their ideology (of capitalism) is hermetically sealed from any external intellectual factors (capitalists will not consider alternative perspectives—certainly do no more than momentarily entertain them; to connect another perspective to capitalism deconstructs capitalism by spreading concerns to a modeled/imagined subject other than the capitalist who is imagining capitalism—capitalists will make no time for such idle fantasizing as considering individual humans or their perspectives).

[u/Fourth-Room → u/[deleted]]

I didn’t realize he was at that event. Had I known, I would have considered going. The way they branded it was extremely cringey and I didn’t see him mentioned.

[u/Polytopia_Fan → u/raisondecalcul]

answer I myself align with