Results 1 to 15 of 283

Thread: Nick Land and Neocameralism

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    3,546

    Default Nick Land and Neocameralism

    http://bam-pow-oof.tumblr.com/post/3...series-by-nick

    http://unqualified-reservations.blog...alator-of.html



    I initially dismissed some of these ideas as fedora-wearing, tech-nerd fantasy. But now Nick Land seems all excited about them (I know, small beer these days). Gotta be at least worth a bit of hand wringing. If we're going to have a new aristocracy of Silicon Valley/roundabout neckbeards, then why not go full hog?

    Lord Javascript of Haggerston arise!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    http://www.salon.com/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim/

    A counter-view or something, I suppose.

  3. #3

    Default

    Entirely religious based me arse

  4. #4

  5. #5

    Default

    Why is Nick Land "small beer" these days?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    14,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sectionfive View Post
    Entirely religious based me arse
    Sure, "almost entirely religious based" is still an overstatement even with the "almost" you omitted, but at the same time, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that sectarian hatred had nothing to do with European conflicts in the early modern period. Even if you choose to interpret them more as a symptom than a cause.

    But I don't think we even need to go that far to explode the central argument these guys are presenting. Is he seriously saying that absolute or near-absolute monarchies are inherently less violent than democracies? Or "representative governments", if that means the same thing? Saying WWII and the Holocaust were caused by "representative governments" is ludicrous - the Nazis rose within the Reichstag by winning votes but seized absolute power in a coup and then banned all other political parties. Mussolini likewise isn't a name you readily associate with democracy, while Marxism-Leninism has always been explicitly anti-democratic.

    And if wars in the 20th century have been particularly bloody in terms of absolute death toll, there are two pretty fucking obvious points here: the huge explosion of populations in Europe following the agricultural and industrial revolutions, which meant there were simply far more people available to kill and be killed than in (say) the 17th century; and the vast leaps forward in military technology. I don't think the huge death tolls attributable to the tyrannies of the 20th century can be put down to people's hatred for racial Untermenschen or class enemies being necessarily any more ferocious or unchecked than people's hatred for heretics or infidels in previous centuries.
    Last edited by Mr. Tea; 27-11-2013 at 08:22 AM.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  7. #7

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Lots of info and links in this article: http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

    The points on "The Cathedral" are interesting, adds a bit of conspiracy nut angle to the whole thing.

    Also, what Mr. Tea said on the wars and atrocities of the 20th century.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •