Is this how fascism is defeated?

[Anonymous No.16950886]

>What if - instead of 'How Do You Make Yourself A Body Without Organs?' - one were to ask: How do you make yourself a Nazi? For this is far more strenuous than the 1980 diagnosis suggests.

>1) Wherever there is impersonality and chance, introduce conspiracy, lucidity, and malice. Look for enemies everywhere, ensuring that they are such that one than simultaneously envy and condemn them. Proliferate new subjectivities; racial subjects, national subjects, elites, secret societies, destinies.

>2) Burn Freud, and take desire back to the Kantian conception of will. Wherever there is impulse represent it aschoice, decision, the whole theatrical drama of volition. Introduce a gloomy atmosphere of oppressive responsibility by couching all discourses in the imperative form .

>3) Revere the principle of the great individual. Personalize and mythicize historical processes. Love obedience above all things, and enthuse only for signs; the name of the leader, the symbol of the movement, and the icons of molar identity.

>4) Foster nostalgia for what is maximally bovine, inflexible, and stagnant: a line of racially pure peasants digging the same patch of earth for eternity.

>5) Above all, resent everything impetuous and irresponsible, insist upon unrelenting vigilance, crush sexuality under its reproductive function, rigidly enforce the domestication of women, distrust art, classicize cities to eliminate the disorder of uncontrolled flows, and persecute all minorities exhibiting a nomadic tendency.

>To want to be in the right is the common substratum of morality and genocidal reaction;the same desire for repression - organized in terms of the disapproving gaze of the father - that Anti-Oedipus analyzes with such power. Who could imagine Nazism without daddy? And who could imagine daddy being pre-figured in the energetic unconscious?

>After all, lose control and you might end up fucking with a Jew, becoming effeminate, or creating something degenerate like a work of art. Does anyone really think that Nazism is like letting go? Theweleit's studies of Nazi body posture should be sufficient to disabuse one of such an absurdity. Nazism can turn you into a stiff before the messy passage into death.

- Nick Land

I'm worried about radicalization. Is Nick Land's diagnosis the best? I think it gets to the root of the problem even more than Deleuze. Any other literature on this?

[Anonymous No.16950891]

>Does anyone really think that Nazism is like letting go? Theweleit's studies of Nazi body posture should be sufficient to disabuse one of such an absurdity. Nazism can turn you into a stiff before the messy passage into death.
>In the late 1970s, at a time when what is today called gender history was mostly conceived of as women's history, driven by the effort to make women—female agency, impact, and suffering—visible in a male-dominated world, the German literary scholar Klaus Theweleit drew attention to the emotional world and gendered “phantasies” of men. It was a special group of men that Theweleit examined, however: the German Freikorps soldiers who, in the aftermath of World War I, and in a spirit of authoritarianism, militarism, nationalism, and misogynistic resentment, fought a civil war against democrats, socialists, communists, Jews, and women. In Theweleit's view, Freikorps men radicalized common Western and German norms about male self-control and “hard” masculinity into a perpetual war against women and femininity. It was not least the femininity that existed within men, as a desire for domesticity, tenderness, and compassion, that the men of the Freikorps wanted to “defeat.” Driven by the loss of a firm identity and ubiquitous fears of sexuality and states of liquidity, these men and their “male fantasies” spearheaded the rise and heralded the devastating impact of the Third Reich, according to Theweleit. Although his work was empirically based on a limited number of autobiographical writings by the individuals he examined, Theweleit, inspired by post-Freudian psychoanalysis, understood his findings in a quasi-universal sense: masculinity, male solidarity, and, above all, the steeled, armored male body appeared as the engines of a patriarchal order, with “perpetrator-men” and “victim-women” juxtaposed dichotomously.

[Anonymous No.16950896]

>>16950886
I will never understand what Nick Land is trying to say but he's the philosopher of our times for sure.

[Anonymous No.16950916]

>>16950896
>The patronymic has irrecoverably divested all the women who fall under it of any recourse to an ethno-geographical identity; only the twin powers of father and husband suppress the nomadism of the anonymous female fluxes that patriarchy oppressively manipulates, violates, and psychiatrizes. By allowing women some access to wealth and social prestige the liberalization of patriarchy has sought to defuse the explosive force of this anonymity
Extremely based. 21st Century is Land's century

[Anonymous No.16951154]

>That is why the proto-fascism of nationality laws and immigration controls tends to have a sexist character as well as a racist one. It is because women are the historical realization of the potentially euphoric synthetic or communicative function which patriarchy both exploits and inhibits that they are invested with a revolutionary destiny, and it is only through their struggle that politics will be able to escape from all fatherlands.

[Anonymous No.16951157]

word salad

[Anonymous No.16951179]

>>16951157
>t. filtered fasctard

[Anonymous No.16951191]

>this is your brain on drugs kids

[Anonymous No.16951237]

>>16951179
Anon is right though. It's literally just spewing descriptors from a thesaurus with no justification or explanation for his conclusions.
It's graduate school-level vocab wasted on a polemic that could be simplified to "Fascists are stupid and paranoid"

[Anonymous No.16951252]

>>16950886
Isn't he a literal fascist now?

[Anonymous No.16951265]

>>16950886
>I'm worried about radicalization. Is Nick Land's diagnosis the best?
No, but is not bad if you already know what you are reading in these texts. Most of Nick's fanbase are just illiterate edgy underages and mentally ill anglos. What can we see in the fact that you quoted most of the ironic quotes of Land, believing that he was saying something beyond making fun of deleuze's fear of violence

[Anonymous No.16951278]

>>16950886
Could you post sources to which texts/essays you are refering here excactly ?

[Anonymous No.16951297]

>>16951252
>>16951265
Nice cope

[Anonymous No.16951313]

There is a strangely potent bitterness to anti-accel-fag-posting that makes me wonder, why would anyone react to accelerationism in such a vindictive way? It's an ideology of resignation and despair, it eschews political offense or confrontation. It's like getting mad at someone for not arguing with you. Very strange.

Also imo using big words allows the brain to manipulate big ideas. The information packed into a definition does not linearly scale with the cognitive toll of using or understanding them, so having large numbers of well defined terms literally makes you smarter in a given subject and anyone who calls Land's writing pretentious inadvertently reveals themselves as stubbornly and proudly brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16951336]

[Anonymous No.16951391]

>>16951313
>literal schizoid babble- words openly misused, to bring up the "feel" of technology- out-of-date assumptions including the Marxist mistake of completely ignoring the human agent- the lionization of the Chinese paper tiger- treading water in a fetid pool of "I Fucking Love Science!" brainletgrab headlines- and, indeed, pretension in a deeper sense than the simple misuse of long and profound words, pretense at being, as a man, capable of knowing or even guessing the trajectory of overminds.
Landian accelerationism is simply Dark Reddit.

[Anonymous No.16951703]

>>16951297
>1995 land = 2020 land
Read a book, nigger

[Anonymous No.16951749]

>>16951154
If I take the pink pill can I join her polycule?

[Anonymous No.16952521]

>>16951391
Cope

He's genius tier

[Anonymous No.16953250]

>>16951313
>Also imo using big words allows the brain to manipulate big ideas.
Maybe, but they tend to be less precise for communicating ideas. You come to understand words based on the contexts you see them in more than from their dictionary definition. With obscure words, you're less likely to share that context with the writer. If I've only ever seen a word in one previous author's work, then my understanding of its connotations is going to be the same as that author's, but this particular understanding may not be shared by the author I'm currently reading.

[Anonymous No.16954157]

>>16950891
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.16954648]

>>16951703
>thinking theres a difference

[Anonymous No.16956023]

>>16951336
Hyperbasado. Fascists seething

[Anonymous No.16956917]

>>16954157
Who?

[Anonymous No.16958413]

>>16951336
The type of nigga to go to Hengsha looking for an automated lady

[Anonymous No.16958621]

>>16950886
>>16950916
>>16951154
Nothing wrong with this analysis. Too bad nazism isn't hurt by saying the truth.

>b-but you're rigid etc blablablooobloo
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16958645]

>>16950886
>wall of text
>Is this how fascism is defeated?
This is why fascism is un-ironically winning you massive nigger.

[Anonymous No.16958811]

>>16958645
Filtered

[Anonymous No.16959294]

>>16958811
Filtered

[Anonymous No.16959342]

>>16959294
Filtered

[Anonymous No.16959383]

>>16959342
Filtered

[Anonymous No.16959440]

>>16959383
Filtered

[Anonymous No.16959648]

>>16950886
It becomes readable if I window my browser and resize it to a third of my screen. Disgusting phoneposter.

[Anonymous No.16960243]

>>16959648
Huh?

[Anonymous No.16960310]

>>16952521
>geniuses can't be fundamentally wrong and brain-damaged
Silence, faggot

[Anonymous No.16960385]

>>16950886
Is a FunkoPop a body without organs?

[Anonymous No.16960485]

>>16960385
Fuck, I guess

[Anonymous No.16960555]

>>16960310
refute him then

[Anonymous No.16960601]

>>16960555
Couch even one claim that he makes in terms plain enough to actually be refuted

[Anonymous No.16961222]

>>16951191
Based

[Anonymous No.16961234]

>>16951237
Creating meaningful neologisms is the most important development of any philosophy.