Commit 06e41c0a authored by n1x's avatar n1x

add some drafts

parent 7d01dd3e
\ No newline at end of file
......@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
title: "The Aphotic Insurrection"
date: 2017-06-21T19:22:49-07:00
categories: ["aphotheosis"]
tags: ["insurrection", "apothic", "oceanic", "fluidity"]
type: "post"
draft: false
title: "Blog Without Organs"
date: 2018-06-23T23:30:34-07:00
type: "post"
categories: ["meta"]
tags: ["tech", "hugo", "design", "decentralization"]
draft: false
You've undoubtedly noticed by now even if you don't follow my twitter that my blog has undergone some major changes. I've moved it all over from my VPS running Wordpress to Hugo on Gitlab Pages.
I decided to go with a static site generator in part because of the flexibility it offers (especially in the case of Hugo) in exchange for not being as easy to use out of the box. With traditional blogging platforms like Wordpress, everything is stored in a SQL database. The main advantage of this is multi-author support (though even then, this is something that can be enabled in Hugo and other static site generators with some tweaking), but the biggest drawbacks to it that lead to me moving away from it were the need to host it on a dedicated server, and the possibility that if anything were to happen to me, all of my content would be trapped in a sloppy LEMP stack in html.
Static site generators don't require a database, and the sites themselves can be cloned in their entirety using git. The flexibility and extensibility of them also makes it very easy to move the raw markdown files into their own repo, which is what I did. Markdown is nice and clean and can easily be converted to other formats, making it easy for anyone to copy and redistribute my works without me having any control of them. The internet already allows for this to a very significant extent, but we're rapidly approaching a point where the internet and the HTTP protocol are at their limit. The recent repeal of net neutrality and the Time Warner-AT&T merger is a taste of the cablification of the internet, returning it back to the original vision of the internet being little more than another TV channel.
Even in the case of open-source projects like Wordpress, there is still a centralization of sorts that happens. Content on the internet, on the HTTP protocol, isn't peer-to-peer; it's client-server. There is at the core of HTTP a hierarchical relationship that simply by design exists no matter what, and while some might argue that this is an "acceptable hierarchy" the fact remains that it opens the door for content to become reterritorialized onto the servers that can acquire the most content. This is called the [Network Effect](, and it has been a problem for every open-source competitor to things like Google and Facebook. SearX and Diaspora might be great projects in their own right, but they depend on this same client-server relationship and are trying to compete against corporations that are always going to win in that game.
The basic premise for something like Diaspora in particular[^1] is that everyone _should_ use it, because it's open-source and doesn't track you. And while I support any projects that at the very least usurp the technologies from services most people use, if not the network effect as well, these types of projects depend precisely on what people _should_ be doing and not what they _are_ doing. And what people are doing is using services like Google and Facebook that track them and, especially in Facebook's case, have proven over and over again to be extremely untrustworthy and shady. But trust isn't what really matters here; what matters is what people are going to use, and what people are going to use is what already has network effect.
The solution isn't to try to compete against hierarchies in a hierarchical network, but rather to bring down the whole damn network. Or at least create an alternative.
As far as I know, there isn't yet a peer-to-peer git repository that is fit for production. Gitlab is essentially the same sort of thing as Diaspora and GNU Social/Mastodon insofar as it tries to compete against Github by offering an open-source alternative. They are also looking to add federation, which is very exciting. For the time being, moving away from Wordpress to Hugo is a small step towards my desire to liberate content and allow it to become an autonomous entity. Hugo also is flexible enough that it can be hosted on IPFS, which I will be working on for my blogs. IPFS is one of the first and possibly one of the most important projects to come that will liberate content from the client-server hierarchy without relying on a traditional peer-to-peer model like bittorrent or toxcore that requires someone to be online at all times. Every blog post, every shared music library (another project I will be working on soon) will have its own token. Chan culture has long been a pioneer towards liberating content by denying any kind of identity to the content creator. The next step is not only to deny the content creator an identity, but to give the content its own identity. A permanent, cryptographic identity. An identity that gives content self-ownership rather than an identity that gets decided via human consensus. An identity that means nothing to us, cannot mean anything to us by being a random hash, but that literally means everything forever to the content.
Static site generators are blogs without organs. They rip out the database guts that imprison content in a hierarchical database of authors on a server. They exist wherever an assemblage of code can couple with the site repo, providing a smooth space for content to move through and persist beyond even the authority of a human author.
[^1]: Both Diaspora and GNU Social/Mastodon have federation, which to their credit is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, it's not truly peer-to-peer, but rather a federation of servers serving content to clients.
title: "Excerpt from 'The Dark Deleuze Rises'"
date: 2017-07-13T14:45:21-07:00
type: "post"
categories: ["shitposts"]
tags: ["rhetttwitter", "cavetwitter", "memes", "baneposting"]
hidden: true
draft: false
_Night City: 2020. A thin, lumpy-faced man strolls through the rain-soaked streets, downs a handful of Dex. He is clearly disheveled as he makes his way to the bombed-out Villa Straylight. His trenchcoat is a black flag whipping in the wind as he heads to the exit. Waiting outside for him are Sadie Plant, Mencius Moldbug, and three masked men._
Nick: Dr. Plant, I’m Ccru.
Sadie nods.
_Nick spots the three hooded men with Sadie._
Nick: You don’t get to bring friends.
Sadie: They are not my friends.
Moldbug: Don’t worry, no bitcoins for them.
Nick: Why would I want them?
Moldbug: They were trying to unleash acceleration. They work for the PhD student. The U/ACC man.
Nick: Vince?
Moldbug nods.
Nick: Get ‘em in cyberspace – I’ll call it in.
_The six enter the building and proceed to a room lined with decks. They jack in and enter the grid._
_Nick grabs one of the hooded men._
Nick: What are you doing in the middle of my hyperstition?
The hooded man says nothing. Nick loads up the ice.
Nick: The exit plan I’ve drafted lists me and my colleagues, but only one of you.
_Nick hangs the hooded man over the ice. He yells,_
Nick: First one to talk gets to stay in my grid!
Nick: Who funded you to cite Dr. Plant!?
_The hooded man says nothing still. Nick throws him into the ice and derezzes him._
Nick: He didn’t hack so good! Who wants to try next!?
_The killbots grab the second hooded man._
Nick: Tell me about Vince! Why does he live in the cave!?
The second man says nothing.
Nick: Lot of loyalty for a twitter follower!
Third prisoner: Or maybe he’s wondering why someone would accelerate without annihilating human agency?
_Nick turns to the third prisoner and turns off the ice._
Nick: At least you can talk. Who are you?
Third prisoner: We are nothing. We are the subtweets beneath your takes. And no one cared who I was until I let go…
_Nick approaches the third prisoner and pulls of the mask, revealing a bespectacled young man. The light glints off of them, mirrored and bug-like. This is Vince._
Vince: What we do doesn’t matter. What matters is tomorrow’s plan.
Nick: If I let go, will I die?
Vince: It would be extremely painful.
Nick: You’re a speedy guy.
Vince: For you.
Nick: Was getting caught part of U/ACC antipraxis?
Vince: Of course! Dr. Plant refused our offer in favor of yours. We had to know what she told you about us.
Sadie: Nothing! I said nothing!
Nick: Why not just ask her?
Vince: She would not have tweeted back.
Nick: You have methods.
Vince: Her, I need healthy. You present no such problem.
_The grid becomes destablized. A shadow looms over it._
Nick: Well congratulations, you got yourselves caught. So what’s the next part of your antipraxis?
Vince: Accelerating the process…
_The grid is visibly fraying as an AI and several Trog Moderns jack in._
Vince: …unconditionally!
_The AI makes quick work of the killbots as Vince, in the confusion, takes this moment to grapple Nick. The ice is turned back on. Mencius tries to jack out, but in meatspace, the Trog Moderns have already taken over the Villa. Before he can punch deck, he’s been flat-lined._
_Vince overpowers Nick and throws him into the ice. Cyberspace is about to fall apart at the seams. U/ACC’s work is done here, but as Vince and the others are about to leave, he stops one of them._
Vince: They expect one of us in the wreckage, 🅱rother
Trog: Have we started the meltdown?
Vince: Yes, the process accelerates!
_Vince grabs Dr. Plant as he prepares to jack out._
Vince: Calm down, Sadie. Now’s not the time for fear. That time has passed.
_Vince and Dr. Plant exit as the AI begins to assimilate cyberspace into itself._
title: "Dogecon 2018 Report"
date: 2018-06-27T00:14:33-07:00
type: "post"
categories: ["tech"]
tags: ["cryptocurrencies", "decentralization", "memes"]
draft: true
Over the previous weekend, I ended up in Vancouver, BC -- my first time ever leaving the country -- to go to Dogecon 2018: A conference on cryptocurrencies, decentralization, and the community/culture around those two things.
I wasn't sure what to expect from the convention. I only ended up going because my contact at Holochain brought it up to me, and since Holo was one of the sponsors for the convention, I figured it would be a good idea to be there. Since I ended up having to drive there a day late and leave in the middle of the last day, I missed most of the convention, but I nevertheless had a few thoughts on it.
Personally, I'm not exactly very invested in cryptocurrencies or crypto culture, which is probably ironic. Obviously the technology is of interest to me, and obviously cryptocurrencies are basically technocapital made flesh, but the culture around cryptocurrencies has always struck me as being pretty much commodity fetishism's ultimate realization. I'm not a nocoiner, but I also don't have the money to be able to put into what basically amounts to gambling for the epic memes. Monero and Holo are two notable exceptions to this because they provide tangible benefits to me _today_, from a technological perspective. Monero makes it possible to buy and sell things completely anonymously, and Holo is one of the most interesting projects around right now for decentralizing the web. Bitcoin is, well... I'm still broke if I buy Bitcoin or another crypto, and might be even more broke depending on how the prices fall.
That being said, it was mostly interesting to me to analyze the politics of the crypto crowd. I went in being as open to difference as possible, because given my political background it would be far too easy to just dismiss everything that was being said as lolbertarian nonsense. To be fair, there was a fair bit of that, and a good deal of utopianism that simply did not compute with me. Crypto offers the possiblity of liberating capital from state repression, which is exciting both from an accelerationist and also from an anarchist perspective. In the latter case, this is because unlike most anarchists who seem to be all too quick to side with the state if it means regulating capital in some way, I'm all for unleashing the tiger from its cage, to paraphrase notable anarcho-liberal Noam Chomsky.
However, unlike most of the rest of "anarchists" and libertarians, I'm also under no delusion that the tiger is anything other than a tiger. Markets are brutal planes of conflict and death, and the utopianism of the crypto community over the prospect of market exchanges happening outside the scope of state policing is incredibly odd to me because of this. I would think that these people, more so perhaps even than leftists, would understand this. But then again, this point segues into the point I was just about to make, which is that while markets _should_ punish failure with swiftly and brutally, this simply isn't how things work in the real world. In large part this is due to the existence of the state, which colludes with an oligarchy of corporations to maintain an equilibrium of power. But if the state as we know it were to dissolve, it would only be replaced by privatized states. A state is simply a monopoly on power, speaking in the broadest possible terms; this can mean that a state is either a government or a private entity. And in the case of cryptocurrencies, and the libertarian utopia that most crypto advocates imagine, [the latter is exactly what we've already seen happen](
Two things at Dogecon on this topic really struck a chord with me, in a bad way. The first was on the topic of decentralization and recentralization, at a speed debate event where the topic for the two audience members participating was big blocks versus small blocks. For those who don't know, block size is basically a throttle for how much data can be added to the blockchain at a time. Without getting too deep into this debate, [which is a long and heated one in the crypto community](, the point being made in favor of big blocks was essentially to trust the miners, because the miners have no incentive to fuck everyone else over.
The second point was regarding privacy coins like Monero and Zcash, which essentially amounted to "we don't need to worry about privacy in the first-world."
These two positions are utterly insane to me, especially to hear coming from a community that is stereotyped as being a bunch of government-hating drug-buying libertarians. To the credit of the room though, the response to the big vs. small blocks debate (which came from someone else who stepped in to defend it) was extremely on-point and essentially argued that every single person who uses cryptocurrencies __must__ be able to validate the blockchain themselves. If this isn't possible, all we're doing is giving the power to another state (or really, a patchwork).
Someone else at some point made some snarky remarks about how it's impossible to have a discussion with leftists about markets, because the question always ends up getting reduced to moralistic arguments about what is and isn't "fair". To the credit of the speaker, despite their extremely canned criticisms of leftists, this is as true as it is true that you can't have a discussion as a communist with libertarians without their blind moralistic arguments about "freedom" coming into play. Sure, it might not be "fair" that an oligarchy of Bitcoin mining pools has been able to take advantage of Bitcoin's preference for expensive ASIC hardware to such a point that the decentralization of power that Bitcoin promised is being overturned by essentially the same types of useless day traders as people on Wall Street, but hey, that's the "free" market baby. If you object to this you must be a infantile communist who wants to restrict the freedom of the rich to become richer.
The point of accelerationism, for me at least, isn't that capitalism as we know it is just going to continue into an endless neo-liberal cyberpunk dystopia. The whole idea of patchwork is fragmenting power into smaller, more managable chunks that are also being forced to compete with others vying for power in the market. A market that, as said earlier, should be a brutal plane of conflict. In a truly free market, entire city-state sovcorps should be able to go bankrupt overnight and have their assets stripped and sold for scrap by more fit sovcorps. The fate of the capitalist to be a slave to the market should be accelerated, and he should never know any respite from it. Patchwork should live in constant fear of the encroaching anarchy beyond the walls hacking together the future in a distributed smooth space where ideas and resources flow freely without any ruling powers hitting the brakes to maintain equilibrium and their profit margins.
That being said, then, it seems pretty clear to me that trusting anyone who has anything over you is a betrayal of accelerationism and decentralization. Which fits with the second point I mentioned earlier about privacy. Now I'm not sure why anyone, cryptocurrency advocates especially, would object to private and anonymous exchanges. Maybe because they are concerned about equilibrium and peace being maintained in their hyper-fascist libertarian utopia. Either way, they ignore the second most powerful possibility for crypto. The freedom crypto offers is freedom both from centralized power and from surveillance.
title: "New Years, New Tears"
date: 2018-01-01T16:06:30-07:00
type: "post"
categories: ["aphotheosis"]
tags: []
draft: false
In 1916, the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote in his article "I Hate New Years Day":
> Every morning, when I wake again under the pall of the sky, I feel that for me it is New Year’s day.
> That’s why I hate these New Year’s that fall like fixed maturities, which turn life and human spirit into a commercial concern with its neat final balance, its outstanding amounts, its budget for the new management.[^1]
Before the implicit Judeo-Christian culture that continues to dominate much of the West defeated the Romans many centuries ago, there were pagan tribes in Europe that we can trace many of our holidays in the US back to. And these pagan tribes, famously, were assimilated into Roman culture after being conquered by having parts of their culture assimilated into the Roman Borg culture conglomerate. Thus we have the origins of Christmas, not the day Jesus Christ was actually born on, but a convenient hyperstition to get the pagans to accept Jesus into their lives by associating him with the Winter Solstice.
Things have not changed, only become more refined. Holidays are no longer Christianity flexing its muscles as the dominant conquering religion. Superficially, they have long appeared that way, but only as a front to assimilate us into relations of capital. Christmas has evolved from the pagan solstice holiday to the Christian birth-of-the-savior holiday to a great, violent sacrifice for capital.
The notion of a Heaven and a Hell where people will be judged and sent to when they die is no longer a sufficient narrative for making people be good. The longer our lives become, the less death is a part of it, the less impactful it feels to say that we're going to one day die and be judged. We may be judged then but we have a lifetime to prepare to be judged and a lifetime to have fun before repenting. This is only intensified when the idea of living into old age and being able to retire increasingly becomes a thing of the past, after the post-war honeymoon stage of American capitalism has worn off for more than the most maligned and marginalized groups.
If Santa Claus didn't exist, he would have to be invented in the future and sent back in time. Christianity's linear progression of birth-death-judgment is no longer sufficient. Time has become fragmented for us, and the "continuity of life and spirit" that Gramsci talks about in his New Years piece has likewise been ruptured. Our phenomenal experiences have no clear, pure locus in the world; they are in the wires, abstracted, everywhere and nowhere at once. And likewise, surveillance is not located merely in police and judges; it is everywhere and nowhere.
There is perhaps no simpler and more baldfaced metaphor for Oedipus than Santa Claus. He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, and he's coming to town.
Even this, however, is no longer a truly sufficient metaphor for capitalism to smuggle itself into our culture. Christmas happens once a year, and everything leads up to it. We learn as we become well-behaved adult players in the Oedipal drama that Christmas isn't a time when we are rewarded for getting free stuff; rather, Christmas is a market exchange where we, ideally, will break even. A great sacrifice of capital (and in the case of Black Friday, often some lives) to mark off the year with equilibrium. The waste and excess that capitalism requires is forgotten.
This is why the subject of this post is on New Years, because while Christmas is the performative and outmoded spectacle of A-Time, New Years is what underlies this spectacle. The notion that time can be marked off neatly by cycles of waste, equilibrium, renewal -- a mirror of the cycle of capital. That with each new year, things are any different.
Everywhere on social media, even among so-called radicals (even if they might claim it's ironic), A-Time shuffles through the wires, yet New Years happens for us as many times as it happens for the world, in real time. New Years for me felt like nothing, as I had already experienced a hyperreal midnight several times that day. There were many New Years that day for me; already I am in the year 2020. And it is always midnight somewhere for us when everywhere we go, we have a device the plugs our phenomenal experiences into a matrix of shared social spectacles. How many years we age in one year, how much further we spiral into being past our life expectancy. Just as it was for our neolithic ancestors, by 30 death is already a part of our everyday lives.
The only thing that changes with each year are how many more ruptures in time have been torn.
title: "Not Your Comrade"
date: 2018-06-26T18:00:57-07:00
type: "post"
categories: ["what-did-she-mean-by-that"]
tags: ["critique", "post-left"]
draft: true
I find myself often making takes off the cuff that generate a response that warrants further explanation, but often I avoid getting involved in a prolonged hellthread about it. Not very U/ACC of me perhaps since hellthreads are a proud #cavetwitter tradition, but I've spent enough of my life arguing with people on the internet to know that it's almost always an exercise in futility.[^1] But since I have a blog from which I can pontificate without it getting drowned out in the context of a twitter thread, I'm thinking of maybe returning to tweets like this to give a (hopefully) better explanation of what I meant. This may end of being an extremely self-important experiment, but isn't all blogging self-important, really?
Without further ado then, here's the first post in "What Did She Mean By That?", starting with:
{{< tweet 1007782945887805440 >}}
Several of the responses I got to this had to do with either the the treacherous nature of reactionary ideologies, or concerns that this is the sort of shit someone would start to say before going full right-wing. Much as I hate the Left, I have no interest in aligning myself with people who would want me dead if I can't fulfill my only possible value for sexually-repressed fashy men as some trap sex toy. So I'm of course going to only take the first issue seriously.[^2]
The idea that reactionaries will often conceal their true motives and pretend to be your comrades already gets at why I titled this post what I did, because my tweet was really motivated by several years of consistent grievances with the Left and non-left anarchists. Ever since I first started to take anarchism and communism seriously, and not just as an edgy image for myself, I've had very few good experiences with other anarchists, communists, etc. I've also met most of the people I consider friends through our shared politics or political backgrounds/interests, but whenever I think about these sorts of questions, I always return to a post from one of my favorite anarchists, Aragorn!, who wrote in 2015
> "There seems to be a general confusion about the difference between friendship and comrades(hip)...In my few friendships is a feeling, a shared chemistry...Comrades, on the other hand, are a bit easier to find, even today."
The last line, in particular, speaks to me, though not in the sense that I think Aragorn! was using it here. Much as I appreciate people like Aragorn who manage to make a lot of really cool and useful projects happen in the anarchist community,[^3] while managing to not be assholes, I think that the effects of the internet on radical communities is something that we wouldn't yet see the results of around the time when he wrote that blog post. But even so, this isn't even limited to anarchists and leftists on the internet.
Before I had any involvement on the internet with leftists and anarchists, I went to one of CrimethInc.'s talks that they did on the "To Change Everything" circuit in 2015. All I really remember from it, that has stuck with me ever since, was after the talks when the speakers opened the floor for the audience to ask questions and have a back-and-forth with the speakers. Everyone sat there awkwardly for awhile, with a few people here and there asking some questions, but overall I would say I gave a pretty decent amount of time before I started to participate at all.
I've never been one to be very bold or confident in group discussions, but I was a young anarkiddie who was excited enough to be at my first real gathering of "comrades" that I decided to try to participate. I can't remember what I even asked, only that I was doing the back and forth thing that the speakers had said they were going to be doing, and pretty quickly got called out essentially in front of everyone to check my privilege because I was a white dude and was more likely to take up space and blah blah blah.
Obviously in retrospect this is pretty amusing considering that in a little over a year I would realize that I was in fact _not_ a guy. Still white, but not a guy. Trying to add some discussion to the space, and getting shot down for taking up space after waiting my turn to talk when there was a long stretch of awkward silence, and going forward with the agreed-upon discussion format.
This might seem like a weird thing to be dwelling on years later, but it seems to have set the tone for all of my experiences with anarchists and leftists since then.
[^1]: All debating in general, really, is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. More on this in the future.
[^2]: I'll pretend to not be slightly insulted at the idea that I'd ever align myself with fash.
[^3]: Aragorn!, ["As much as I hate you, work is worse"](
[^4]: It was Aragorn in fact who encouraged me to do my cyber-nihilism talk at EBAB 2016.
......@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
title: "Reflections on Violence Pt. 1: Insurrectionary Anarchism"
date: 2018-01-28T17:42:37-07:00
categories: ["anarchy"]
tags: ["anarchism", "insurrection", "critique", "war"]
series: ["reflections-on-violence"]
type: "post"
draft: false
title: "Declassified Toxicology Report: The Tenacity of Slime"
date: 2018-04-18T01:10:48-07:00
categories: ["theoryfic", "slime girls"]
categories: ["theoryfic", "slimegirls"]
tags: ["slime", "fluidity", "serial-killers", "leaks"]
type: "post"
draft: false
title: "The Final Solution to the Bi Question"
date: 2018-06-26T12:06:18-07:00
type: "post"
categories: ["aphotic feminism", "what-did-she-mean-by-that"]
tags: ["critique", "feminism", "queer", "lesbianrx"]
draft: true
On more than one occasion, I've been asked for takes related to bi folks. Most of the time I've offered some shitposty bi-exlusionary radicial feminism that should not be taken as serious (I think I've made that clear before as well). Nevertheless, I've always tried to remain clear as well that I'm not at all about universalist political queer LGBT community shit, or even broader feminist sisterhood bullshit. The former because the LGBT community is far too diverse a group of people for there to be any kind of meaningful consensus that doesn't end up being dominated by the most privileged groups (gay men), and the latter because you cannot fucking trust straight white feminists. This is, I think, where #LesbiaNRx finds its genesis: Looking for an exit from patriarchy, by any means necessary.
Obviously from the name alone this leaves open the question of how bi women fit into #LesbiaNRx.[^1] I've been asked before whether #LesbiaNRx is just lesbian separatism adapted to accelerationism and NRx, and this is true to some extent. However, it's important to note that #LesbiaNRx is also rather iconoclastic when put against most of the history of feminism and feminist theory. One of the biggest divergences from the broader milieu being the antipolitical U/ACC stance of it.
## Women and Machines: Co-conspirators Against the Human Race
I should be clear and say outright that lesbian separatism in its original inception was an extremely stupid idea that has close ties to TERFism. The idea that women's bodies, women's sexuality is something that needs to be in service of a political agenda is precisely the sort of humanist patriarchal grand narrative nonsense that in the opposite pole has treated women's bodies as tools for the reproduction of labor. Patriarchy treats women fundamentally as machines for the reproduction of labor in the sense of both breeding new children and raising them, but also acting as the surrogate mommy gf for the husband. And it is only thanks to the acceleration of technocapital that women were liberated from this position following a period of regression and reterritorialization that came with primitive accumulation.
In the absence of inorganic machines more fit to labor and reproduce labor, women had to take on this role, being the closest organic kin to machines that could be found in the household of every laborer. As labor power has increased since primitive accumulation, it becomes less necessary to have children. Enough automation has been introduced[^2] that it isn't necessary for human beings to be on the assembly lines. Instead, we perform more abstract and comfortable office labor, which is likewise soon to be replaced by cybernetics. Nevertheless, what this meant for women is 1). The only real impetus for women to be housewives is residual cultural expectations, and 2). Men no longer, in general, do jobs so exhausting that they're incapable of taking care of themselves when they come home.
The story here is that women and machines are kin. The more power to the machine, the more power to the woman. Labor power reaches a hard limit with what humans are capable of before we break down individually or as a society (in the case of revolutions). Capital must be coupled with cybernetics to escape itself.
## Women-for-Women, Machines-for-Machines
The alignment of #LesbiaNRx with technocapital should therefore be apparent. The commingling of machine labor with machine labor is analogous to the commingling of women with women.
[^1]: And also non-binary people, trans men, etc., but this is a question for another post.
[^2]: Along of course with the imperial domination of third-world countries to offset labor elsewhere, but this is just repeating the process. Eventually there will be nowhere in the anthropocene for technocapital to go, and it will have to start fully reproducing itself. And by then, it will be strong enough to and have no further need for us anyways.
title: "Trans Nihilism"
date: 2017-09-23T00:49:10-07:00
categories: ["aphotic feminism","gender-fucked chaos","narcissism"]
categories: ["aphotic-feminism","gender-fucked-chaos","narcissism"]
tags: ["trans", "gender", "nihilism", "critique", "hell", "satanic"]
type: "post"
draft: false
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment