/lit/ - Literature

>>13611508
Part 2:
Schizoanalysis, initially conceived as a challenge to bourgeoise control measures, became another tool to open new markets for the perpetuation of the consumer economy so essential to neoliberalism's self-preservation. Detournment became the advertisement. Any challenge to the cultural mantra of bourgeoise individualism and infinite growth was deemed antiquated and implied to be the work or grumpy old white men who were actually reactionary despite their progressive posturing. All was dismantled until it couldn't be dismantled any further without making everything incomprehensible. Then it was dismantled even more anyway.

Now there is an ocean of atomized and confused individuals who have been taught by the tv which babysat them that they can only truly actualize themselves through consumption. Networking rather than friendship and solidarity was further driven down their throats in the charter schools and increasingly privatized universities. From this perspective we can begin to understand why Identity Politics have been so influential to political organizing on both the Right and the mainstream Left in the first world. Because identitarianism allows these atoms to cluster together and use their masses of atomic energy to influence the State to give them space in the current order or things. They may be unaware that this is what they are doing but nontheless, they are doing it.

This is why "Intersectionality" has replaced solidarity in the Leftist discourse of the 1st world. Because all intersectionality does is ask the State to incorporate the oppressed and marginalized into the function of its structures, whereas the old solidarity implies a cross-identity coalition to abolish the system which necessitates oppression and marginalization in the first place. Likewise, the Right cums in its pants when Trump does something any of the "cuckservatives" they despise would have done, and what their most reviled villains such as Obama and Bill Clinton were already doing, because he points at them while he is doing it, he makes them feel special, he elevates them, however briefly, from their status as consumerist automatons into someone who matters. Obviously identitarianism on the Left and the politicians and intelligentsia who preach it as gospel serve the same function.

The spectre or accelerationism is often invoked when discussing the victory of Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election of the USA. It should be but not for the reasons often proposed IE "Trump is so shitty that he will force people to become Left" or "Trump will bring about the singularity".

We should instead look to a passage from the introduction go Nick Land's modern classic Fanged Noumena, for an articulation of our premise. In the intro the editors propose "The history of life on earth, from bacteria to microsoft, is the history of suppression" and that "Revolution is the release of these inhibited powers of synthesis, the potentially euphoric synthetic or communicative function, the dismantling of nation-states and patriarchy-a task that,since it hinges on the sexual economy of gender and race currently in force emerges first of all as the revolutionary destiny or women in a militant, effectively violent feminism. It is women who harbour the potential to jeopardize neo-colonial capital, in whose patriarchical and identitarian inhibition they have no investment"

Thus, Hillary Clinton(and her clones in the 2020 race such as Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar) aren't accelerationist choices but not because of the usual vulgar accelerationist narrative on Trump (he will make thing so bad revolution will be forced to occur whether it wants to or not) is correct but because the one on Hillary (she is a progressive liberal who will radically change everything) is false.

In other words Hillary's brand of feminism, which assimilated the worst excesses of toxic masculinity and patriarchical ideology into a feminine caricature rather than actively challenges them in themselves and negates them (indeed a process of becoming "more man than man" if you will) would have been the conservative male centered position that made a new feminist movement impossible, whereas Trump, by being both the personification and the farcical satire of every negative masculine trait ensures that a feminist project must be reconstructed to resist his reign based solely on the ridiculous alternative; that such a cartoonish oaf wouldn't antagonize his feminine critics into a state of panicked uproar merely by existing