/edu/ - Education

>What the fuck happened?
Meth.

Fanged noumina and the whole ccru were a beautiful cyber post modernism.
>what happened?
The group broke up and mark fisher died. Nick land is the definition of “used to be good.”

>>20941
Where is the evidence he is a fascist? I thought he lived in communist China? He is a communist

>>20945
He wants the government to be run by an oligarchical boardroom that appoints a CEO (literally the term he uses) who tries to maximize the rate at which capital accelerates its own growth. Whatever you want to call that, that's what he is. He technically does support Marxist experiments still, but he doesn't want them to take over the world and prevent capital from developing a cybernetic body that can escape human whims. I'm not the person you're replying to, but I don't really think this is too far off from fascism. It's basically Curtis Yarvin's plan but with ambitions of post-humanism instead of libertarianism. The "meth" answer has a modicum of truth to it, by his own admission he went partially insane after a year-long meth binge, but IMO this isn't really the cause so much as a symptom of his madness. The thing about Fisher's suicide is a non-sequitor, happened way after Land went post-Marxist.

>>20943
I'll just stick to Fanged Noumena and CCRU then. I never really liked Fisher though.

It seems Land just took the whole accelerationist thing way too far and now that's all he lives for.

>>20941
The only thing I've read by Nick Land was an article called "HYPER-RACISM" which basically parroted debunked bell-curve race science. Then it tried to describe how people marry / mate based in the same class and that class is a proxy for IQ / intelligence (literally not even true, ignoring that IQ is stupid), therefore we're on the verge of creating a new race of hyper intelligent humans or something.

I think the thing that I find so annoying about it (racism aside), is the same thing that annoys me about silicon valley tech billionaires. It's this idea that technology and science are hurtling forward exponentially, and that there are no fundamental constraints that govern the world. It's just like… so obviously not true. There are hard constraints on the literal physical world, there are mathematical constraints, there are economic constrains, you can't just hand wave away all of this shit.

I think the reason e-acc people have glommed on to accelerationism is because we've started hitting the tail end of Moore's law and low interest rates, and no one wants to believe that we're about to enter a period of technological stagnation in computing. We've lived through a period of rapid scientific and technological advancement, but there's no real reason to believe it will last forever and real evidence that some of it is slowing down.