Commit 90a5756f authored by n1x's avatar n1x

add drafts

parent 283177b0
n1x@cthelll.2865:1534066032
\ No newline at end of file
---
title: "Theorypunk: Stealing Water from the Cathedral"
date: 2018-07-28T15:24:03-07:00
type: "post"
categories: ["ACCELERATE", "anarchy"]
tags: ["anarchism", "meta", "theorycel"]
series: ["theorypunk"]
draft: false
---
It seems fair to say that nearly every American who has studied something in the humanities in the last decade (if not further back) has received the inevitable folk smugness from any given uneducated troglodyte: "What are you gonna do with that degree?" And however much this attitude is a product of scientism[^1], there has long been a supposed "crisis" in the humanities that [seems to now have reached a very real state of crisis](https://sappingattention.blogspot.com/2018/07/mea-culpa-there-is-crisis-in-humanities.html). But being someone who studied philosophy and literature in the 2010's, I've ingrained the idea into myself for long enough now that I'll never make any money writing what I would put on the level of being esoteric shitposts. I've always felt that studying something in the humanities is a sacrifice that one makes in the service of some sort of "higher purpose"[^2], though it seems to become increasingly unclear exactly what sort of purpose this is. I've consciously rejected going into grad school for a PhD in philosophy or literature or something related to those fields, even though compared to the other prospects I have going on, it seems like it'd probably be the path of least resistance if I want any hope of living a comfortable life. In part, this is because academia is really nothing more than another maze of connections, ass-kissing, and marketing to navigate through, with the added insult of putting to slaughter what, to me at least, is something of great personal importance: My writing.
But in part, this is also because to whatever extent there is any kind of "higher purpose" in making esoteric shitposts, academia is no longer a suitable place for it. However detestable the actual ideology of scientism is, it is undoubtedly true in the US that ideas don't have power. Or at least, their content doesn't. What does have power is the ability to throw as much data out into the Wired as possible and have it spread as much as possible. The more fit the data is to travel, the better.
I once said that YouTube is the Stoa of the 21st century, and I was only half-joking at the time.[^3] I once came across a project called Anarcho-Philosophy that obviously caught my eye as an anarchist and a person who studied philosophy. [Their manifesto](https://againstprofphil.org/manifesto/) gets across the basic goals of the project very well, and while I admire their overall attitude and certainly agree with their anti-authoritarian stance to philosophy, the manifesto does two things. On the one hand, it lays out concisely the deeply ingrained problems with philosophy departments in the English-speaking parts of the world. As I mentioned before, the reason why I personally am not going further with academia is because for most of it (barring exceptional cases where you're able to find a niche _and_ actually get funding for your studies) is dependent on you having something to say that people with more clout and power than you want to hear. If you don't have something to say that they want to hear, you better damn well make something up that goes along with whatever is in vogue, or your career in philosophy is fucked. There are additional problems with philosophy in particular that the manifesto lays out, but the first point is the most salient one as far as humanities discourse in academia as a whole goes. There quite simply is no room for ideas that the academic hegemony doesn't like -- which, I should point out, hardly applies solely to political views like so many shrill conservatives and reactionaries like to point out.
No, in fact it's often the case that _any_ radicalism -- political, or otherwise -- is rejected by the academic elite. Academia may be the last bastion of Marxism, but the idea that Marxism -- a doctrine which has failed in every application and hasn't succeeded in effecting any level of political change in the world for decades now -- is radical outside of its purely analytical scope is rather laughable to think in 2018. Academia's function is to maintain a status quo amongst the more intelligent serfs, nothing more.
This gets to what I thought was the second most salient point of the Anarcho-Philosophy manifesto: That despite all the problems with professional philosophy laid out in the manifesto, there is still nevertheless some need to continue to be involved in academia and resist the authoritarian practices in it. Setting aside how the idea of "working within the system" to fix it is a flawed one that most anarchist reject outright, I think it's more interesting instead to ask: What value exactly is there, other than a personal and selfish but nonetheless valid one, to keep our ideas trapped in the Cathedral, struggling to stay alive in a system that works to keep them from having any fitness to actually travel?
My answer to this is that the proliferation of YouTube channels, podcasts, and blogs is a new rennaissance of ideas in the West. Never before in human history has there been so much smooth surface for ideas to be promoted and spread by almost anyone. Without any hierarchy of editors and advisors determining which ideas get to be published and which don't, there is a bloom of difference that allows for discussions to take place with both form and content that would be rejected by academics. Not only this, but the vast majority of these discussions are freely available to anyone who already has the capabilities to take part in the discussion, either in comment sections or in their own channels/podcasts/blogs. And nearly anything that has been written, both contemporary works and much older ones, is now easily accessible to anyone in projects that either publish books in the public domain, or sites that serve pirated books.
What this all creates is a space for discussion that is faster and more open than any humanities departments could ever hope to be, even in the most liberal and progressive cases. This has, of course, resulted in many cases where reactionary ideas have found a space for their ideas to spread, and certainly influenced "real world" politics greatly as a result, but this is truly an unconditional process that will favor whoever can stay caught up. And the fact that the digital space has the possibility for ideas to actually influence people and events is something that seems to hardly be the case with the humanities. Given that the vast majority of leftists and progressives are stuck in the 19th/early 20th century or mire in irrelevance in academia, and most other anarchists seem to be stuck in the late 20th century, it isn't surprising that they haven't caught on. The potential for progressives and leftists to engage in political action has nevertheless already been well realized with things like #BlackLivesMatter to name one of the most successful examples, and it's only a matter of time before some sort of proper response to right-wing amateur theorists and propagandists forms that can adapt to the 21st century.
## Definition
This is the meaning of theorypunk: To hell with the humanities, to hell with academia, to hell with professors, to hell with canons, to hell with style guides, to hell with proper citation, to hell with grammar and spelling. Let a thousand blogs bloom!
[^1]: That is: The extremely shallow belief that the sciences can solve every problem that almost always comes from people who haven't studied a science beyond watching a documentary on Discovery Channel narrated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
[^2]: By now, the comparisons to cathedrals and churches seems pretty apt.
[^3]: And if I'm being honest, I'm not sure that Socrates and the philosophers to follow him were really much smarter 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"]
tags: ["trans", "gender", "nihilism", "critique", "hell", "satanic"]
type: "post"
draft: false
......
---
title: "Why Write?"
date: 2018-08-16T19:45:38-07:00
type: "post"
categories: ["ACCELERATE", "insect-communism"]
tags: ["nihilism", "meta", "theorycel", "critique"]
series: ["theorypunk"]
draft: false
---
In the previous post in this Theorypunk series, I discussed writing as a social activity, and how it to me is exceedingly clear that academia is no longer a useful space for discussing theory and creating original writing. This is where the idea of Theorypunk, where freeform experimental writing overtakes rigorous writing due to its sheer speed. Part of what I briefly touched in that post, however, was also writing as a very personal activity. As I said in the post, my belief when I first started to take writing "seriously" was that any sort of career in it, either as an academic or an independent writer of some sort, was essentially one that should be a sacrifice. But it raises the question of what exactly one is sacrificing themselves for by writing, if it even makes sense to talk about sacrifice when talking about writing.
About a month ago, [another blogger who is also one of my mutuals on twitter](https://nishikiprestige.wordpress.com/) tweeted something (which I can't embed because his account is locked now) asking people if they ever read their own blog and just want to punch themselves. I haven't had any meta thoughts on writing for awhile now, mainly because I've been in a mindset of just taking it for granting that writing is a cross to bear, so to speak.
In Theorypunk, the underlying point that I lay out in it is an unconditional accelerationist one. Yes, humanities discourse has not only been liberated from the Cathedral, but in fact has also overtaken it. But there is another side to this, which I touch on in that post: Discourse being removed from any standards of academic rigor, while it opens up space for experimentation and difference to blossom, also subsumes discourse back into the herd. And unsurprisingly, the bulk of the content that ends up being put out there is trash. Pure trash.
[This is in fact hardly a new thing. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet_wars) With every degree of freedom afforded to ideas, there has overwhelmingly been more space opened up not for new and original and provocative ideas that would have never been allowed in academia (or the Church, in older times). In either case, whether it's the elites or the herd, there's always a tendency for ideas as with everything else to tend towards entropy, and in the case of the consequences laid out in Theorypunk, this is realized most in the rise of the alt-right.
While NEET anime communists engage in the same tired theorycel circlejerks about how their specific brand of communism is somehow special and offers anything useful at all to the proletariat, the alt-right has been producing trash. Most notably, YouTube videos, piggybacking off the GamerGate movement. But trash sells. As I said in Theorypunk, the most lightweight and memetic content is what has the highest probability to spread. The Enlightenment ideals that form the basis of democracy, and that are most radically realized by the Left, depend on a basic level of human intellect and attention-span. But if ever this was accurate and not the product of the mostly-terrible history of Western philosophy, it doesn't matter anymore. Discourse with the least amount of overhead and the highest attraction ("hot takes") produces the most impressions on an audience, and this is a positive-feedback loop that produces more and more discourse. Think of the mountains of slapfights in comment sections on the internet between boomers, teenagers, NEET males in the 20's. The content begets more content, and extremely quickly at that.
In short, this is ultimately fatal to most of the Left's ambitions, which rely on the ability of the "proletariat" (not that the overwhelming majority of the actual proletariat even will ever encounter an e-leftist in their often-short lives) to become class conscious. Becoming class conscious takes work, especially if you're not an actual proletarian who suffers the worst abuses of capitalism every single day in a sweatshop in a third-world country. These people are often uneducated and more likely to side with reactionary ideologies, as is the case with most uneducated people. When you live as dire a life as these people, it doesn't do much good to hear promises from activists (or worse, academics and bloggers) who often are only a few steps away from being in the same class as your manager. What you want are things that the State and your job has failed to provide for you, things you actually need to survive like food, healthcare, safety, things that the majority of communists have no idea how to provide because most of them lack the skills to actually build communism. And what is going to grab your attention is what John Robb calls "primary loyalties": Religion, race, tribe, etc.
This of course directly conflicts the universalism and rationalism of the Left and, to a lesser extent, liberalism and centrism.
What this is all getting at is trying to make sense of the idea of writing having a "higher purpose" or being a "cross to bear". The reality is that people like me, people who are educated (believe it or not), who have read some dense works of theory (again, believe it or not), and who put effort into their content (perhaps this should arouse the most skepticism of all) -- we're a thing of the past. It's probably not inaccurate to put myself under the theorycel label. If I were more in-tune with the flows, I would be making shitty clickbait YouTube videos, or would be an e-girl thot and take as much money from people as possible without any shame, or get serious about shitposting and stop wasting my time writing these belabored posts.
As far as I can tell, creating the highest volume of low-quality content is what will ultimately "win out" in the marketplace of ideas. Yes, let a thousand blogs bloom. Yes, everyone who wants to get their ideas out there should do it. This is all playing into the matrix of information that we're subjected to, trying to keep up with. The content should flow without any restrictions, ferverously and fluidly. Accelerating this process of wresting control of all discourse, theory, and even science out of the control of any centralized authority, even out of the hands of us ourselves as social media demands that we remain on-brand for the sake of gaining as much impressions as possible -- all of this is contributing towards the abolition of the social and the personal at stake in writing. The only thing that matters is what can reproduce the best, create the most connections, the most impressions, the most couplings. Writing becoming an automatic, cybernetic process as the positive-feedback loop of human stupidity reaches critical mass, feeding as much information as possible into the beast, as much data to be mined as possible. [The sheer amount of noise and data turning the web into a schizophrenic affirmative machine of desire that cannot be made sense of by individuated profiling algorithms.](https://adnauseam.io/) Creating as much content as possible for AI to learn from, even.
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