What the fuck is this guys problem?

[Anonymous No.17762233]

Yeah yeah, acceleration blah blah. okay fine. I have zero fucking idea how to accelerate. What is the praxis. Explain it to me or I'll fucking kill you. Don't dumb it down. Is there even praxis? If so, how does his idea of praxis in the 90's differ from what he thinks would work now? Is it all just passively embracing the realities that capitalism create like Baudrillard? What the fuck is this guy saying?

[Anonymous No.17762239]

>>17762233

OP got filtered

[Anonymous No.17762242]

SKELETON

[Anonymous No.17762262]

Op is a skeleton

[Anonymous No.17762267]

>>17762242
>>17762262

wtf do skellingtons have to do with nick land?

[Anonymous No.17762337]

its anti praxsis. you dont have to do anything because its going to happen anyways. just sit back, relax and wait for sweet ai death

[Anonymous No.17762350]

>>17762337

so what's the difference in believing that capital is accelerating and being an accelerationIST? also isn't K-war, lemurian time-war and 'hacking the human security system' praxis?

[Anonymous No.17762359]

>>17762233
I can't think of any actual praxis other than becoming a CEO or fucking voting libertarian or something idk. It's just another nihilistic worldview like Spengler, Kaczinky and Evolafags except it's more technophilic and misanthrophic than the other ones and you're not terrified of trannies

[Anonymous No.17762367]

>>17762359
>>17762337

so at the end of the day accelerationism is just baudrillardianism? basically 'it's the end of human beings and there's no reason to be upset about it, so be ecstatic about it'? what non baudrillardian conclusions does this guy bring to the table?

[Anonymous No.17762387]

>>17762367
>what non baudrillardian conclusions does this guy bring to the table?
Capital being an AI that comes from the future and controlling us all

[Anonymous No.17762402]

>>17762367
He combines Historical Materialism (Marxism) with the acknowledgement that Capitalism has won and that there is no going back.

His position is basically that at this point Leftism is the actual reactionary force holding back progress, because progress is not fags doing parades or women pretending that they're people, progress is Capital becoming sentient and outmoding every problem in the human condition, then gradually replacing humanity with constructs of superior efficacy.

Nick Land's perception of the future is something out of BLAME! or any other posthuman literature.

[Anonymous No.17762495]

>>17762402
>progress is Capital becoming sentient and outmoding every problem in the human condition

what i don't understand though, is how does he envision that rogress being acheived. both in the 90's and now. i have no clue what he thought had to be done in the 90's. is NRx the thing that is most likely to bring about his vision of the future (at least in his mind)? if so, how tf? NRx is pretty idiotic imo. or is he more in favor of anarcho-capitalism?

side note, wtf does noys mean by deleuzian thatcherism (or lyotardian thatcherism as he put it in an interview once)?

[Anonymous No.17762611]

>>17762233
there is no praxis, retarded marxist
it is description, not prescription
the whole point is that you are not in control

[Anonymous No.17762615]

>>17762611

so anyone that thinks lands analysis is basically correct is an accelerationist?

[Anonymous No.17762642]

>>17762233
Take your HRT. Worship twitter.

[Anonymous No.17762644]

accelerationist praxis with landian characteristics mostly consists of posting lukewarm conservative boomer takes on twitter and having 20 post-leftists in the replies saying "nick say amogus"

[Anonymous No.17762658]

on a serious note, there is no praxis. accelerationism isnt really and "ideology" that one is supposed to act on, its more of a description of the ongoing deteretorialisation of capital. being an accelerationist means recognizing this, how you feel about if and if/how you want to change it doesnt really matter to land as far as i know.

[Anonymous No.17762663]

when nietzsche says : the leveling of the european man is the great process which cannot be checkedit should even be accelerated. and baudriallard says ; things must be pushed to the limit where quite naturally they collapse and are inverted. the 'should and 'must' imply some sort of action. what exactly is that action?

[Anonymous No.17762681]

>>17762402
i loved that manga

[Anonymous No.17762712]

>>17762495
nrx is pro-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-communist, and had the 'patchwork' concept. The capitalist bit speaks for itself, the anti-dem/com is because he sees them as political/economic dysfunction, and the patchwork is to produce an evolutionary arms race of types of government and society, the thinking is just that a diversity of types will have more chance of creating the best type, rather than a handful or even one world government, where if it fails then everything fails.

nrx is indeed pretty much a meme but you can see why these ideas would appeal to him

[Anonymous No.17762744]

accfag talking to.himself again

[Anonymous No.17762747]

>>17762712
forgot to mention, his version of Nrx wasn't Monarchical like Moldbug, but Republican, because it was during their Republican forms that England and the Dutch were at their most efficient/revolutionary in terms of capitalist acceleration. The rest of Nrx mostly saw Republics as a degenerated form of Monarchy that would inevitably further degrade into Democratic states, whereas Land had some theory about how republican states have propitious cybernetics or some shit I never understood.

[Anonymous No.17762759]

>>17762359
Do people honestly take the idea of praxis seriously? If you die right this second do you think the politics of your country or world are going to pan out differently? This is obviously delusional, so why are you even talking about praxis or nihilism, you are a tiny ant regardless.

[Anonymous No.17762783]

>>17762747
One thing to note is, atleast i'm pretty sure, Moldbug thinks 'Capitalism' is a spook

[Anonymous No.17762826]

>>17762783
the impression I got reading his UR was that he viewed it in a lolbertarian way. his Monarchist stuff was to set up a state that would ensure basic rule of law(safety, property, etc.) and this would create the conditions necessary for capitalism to flourish among other things. So he is defining capitalism as a quite restricted thing, just the natural emergence of markets from property rights and freedom of association and trade and labor. Being a lolbertarian this is obviously excluding eg. the Federal Reserve from being 'capitalist'.

[Anonymous No.17762874]

>>17762402
just bought the first 4 master edition volumes of this bitch for 75€, can't wait to get into it

[Anonymous No.17762924]

>>17762712
>>17762747

thank you. that's actually a very clear explanation

[Anonymous No.17762934]

>>17762924
his recent essay is an especially lucid explanation
https://zerophilosophy.substack.com/p/rules

[Anonymous No.17763184]

>>17762402

while i sort of agree that, in Lands terms at least, leftists are the reactionaries as far as progress (not human, just evolutionary progress) is concerned, this really ignores the conservatism that is inherent to of basically all other forms of rightism.

sure, within a framework where we're talking about evolutionary progress, yes, leftism is somewhat reactionary, but if we're being honest, rightism is just as regressive, if not even more. it doesn't matter whether you're a left cuck or a right cuck, it's all humanist for the most part and even so called pro capitalists are not in favor of capitalism causing humans to go extinct

[Anonymous No.17763210]

>>17762233
His theory is just to enslave all black people giving all the wealth to the white people until they accelerate it so much they explode.

[Anonymous No.17763233]

>>17763184
yeah it's important to understand Land as a whig, particularly of the Knoxian variety with its bleak view of human nature, everything worthwhile on the right is of the Whig tradition

left-reaction: racial egalitarianism, state spending, universalist morality
right-reaction: religion, nationalism (ex-left progress), traditionalist morality

[Anonymous No.17763238]

>>17762663
Klossowski writes in Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle: "It remains to be seen if this human type [the luxurious surplus man coming out of the leveling of the rest] can be developed by a mechanism that rejects the unassimilable (surplus production), or if it is necessary here to anticipate a deliberate intervention."

[Anonymous No.17763260]

completely unrelated but does land speak french? in the introduction to the bloomsbury version of libidinal economy, Iain Hamilton Grant says that Nick Land turned him onto the book. AFAIK Grant was the first to translate it, so Land must have read it in the original french right?

also does anyone have a link to Land's PhD thesis on Heidegger (i think)

[Anonymous No.17763281]

>>17763233
>>17763184
human capital is for the moment the most valuable thing in existence, so if religion and tradmorality produce more of it(eg eugenic birth patterns) then it's technically not regressive in effect.

This is not how most rightists view that stuff obviously

[Anonymous No.17763309]

>>17763184
>pro capitalists are not in favor of capitalism causing humans to go extinct
not consciouslly maybe

[Anonymous No.17763326]

>>17763309
>not consciouslly maybe

yes, i should have added that.

[Anonymous No.17763345]

>>17763260
Reading ability certainly. At the time the Thirst for Annihilation came out there weren't a lot of Bataille translations, and Land cites (and translates) from all over his Oeuvres complètes. German too it would seem (from his citations of Kant and Heidegger). Don't know if he's retained it after all these (including those drug-addled) years.

[Anonymous No.17763367]

>>17763260
Most intelligent people can read French.

[Anonymous No.17763375]

accelerationism is just another pressentation of the classic cope of gapitalism has fugging won :DDD so lets do nothing and just sit at home

[Anonymous No.17763407]

>>17763367
it's not 1800 anymore so no, if you look at eg Germany English is the priority now, not French.

[Anonymous No.17763435]

>>17763375

as opposed to the JBP-ist version of this argument, which reifies capitalism and speaks of it's achievements, accelerationists are aware that capitalism has mostly negative effects on humans but embrace that fact.

Let's be real, Baudrillard is the truest accelerationist there is.

>>17763407

this

[Anonymous No.17763535]

"I wiped the blade against my jeans and walked into the bar. It was mid-afternoon, very hot and still. The bar was deserted. I ordered a whiskey. The barman looked at the blood and asked:

‘God?’

‘Yeah.’

‘S’pose it’s time someone finished that hypocritical little punk, always bragging about his old man’s power…’

He smiled crookedly, insinuatingly, a slight nausea shuddered through me. I replied weakly:

‘It was kind of sick, he didn’t fight back or anything, just kept trying to touch me and shit, like one of those dogs that try to fuck your leg. Something in me snapped, the whingeing had ground me down too low. I really hated that sanctimonious little creep.’

‘So you snuffed him?’

‘Yeah, I’ve killed him, knifed the life out of him, once I started I got frenzied, it was an ecstasy, I never knew I could hate so much.’

I felt very calm, slightly light-headed. The whisky tasted good, vaporizing in my throat. We were silent for a few moments. The barman looked at me levelly, the edge of his eyes twitching slightly with anxiety:

There’ll be trouble though, don’tcha think?’

‘I don’t give a shit, the threats are all used up, I just don’t give a shit.’

‘You know what they say about his old man? Ruthless bastard they say. Cruel…’

‘I just hope I’ve hurt him, if he even exists.’

‘Woulden wanna cross him merself,’ he muttered.

I wanted to say ‘yeah, well that’s where we differ’, but the energy for it wasn’t there. The fan rotated languidly, casting spidery shadows across the room. We sat in silence a little longer. The barman broke first:

‘So God’s dead?’

‘If that’s who he was. That fucking kid lied all the time. I just hope it’s true this time.’

The barman worked at one of his teeth with his tongue, uneasily:

‘It’s kindova big crime though, isn’t it? You know how it is, when one of the cops goes down and everything’s dropped ’til they find the guy who did it. I mean, you’re not just breaking a law, your breaking LAW.’

I scraped my finger along my jeans, and suspended it over the bar, so that a thick clot of blood fell down into my whisky, and dissolved. I smiled:

‘Maybe it’s a big crime,’ I mused vaguely ‘but maybe it’s nothing at all…’ ‘…and we have killed him’ writes Nietzsche, but—destituted of community—I crave a little time with him on my own.

In perfect communion I lick the dagger foamed with God’s blood."

[Anonymous No.17763644]

>>17762233
the praxis is to experiment:
“This is how it should be done: lodge yourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try out continuums of intensities segment by segment, have a small plot of new land at all times.”

[Anonymous No.17763662]

>>17763644
That's what deleuze says though. Not land. Land is a nihilist unlike deleuze

[Anonymous No.17763678]

>>17763662
yes but land adopts the notion of deterritorialization from deleuze, and a thousand plateaus is drawn upon heavily by accelerationists generally. the quote's just a good statement of what things like "patchwork" are intended to do

[Anonymous No.17763736]

>>17763535
Without technology, I would not be beating my meat at 8 in the morning to this digital fox

[Anonymous No.17763742]

>>17763644
doing drugs and fucking arthoes confirmed as praxis once again

[Anonymous No.17763890]

>>17762611

Praxis isn't necessarily about control. I can participate in something without controlling it

[Anonymous No.17764114]

>>17762826
No, he simply does not believe in capitalism even from the libertarian view. He does not think free markets are a thing that ever truly existed or ever will exist.

[Anonymous No.17764144]

>>17764114
He says stuff like this a lot:

This is the miracle of capitalism, so familiar and yet still so strange. The capitalist restaurant is operated for the benefit of its owners. The Communist restaurant is operated for the benefit of its customers. But which has better food?

We must agree that a restaurant operated effectively for the benefit of the customers will be a better restaurant than any operated for the benefit of the owners. But it is not possible to design a management structure that will reliably achieve this result. The problem is fundamental: we cannot state a precise and unambiguous definition of “good food” that we know all customers will agree on. We cannot characterize the results objectively or quantitatively.

We can, however, operate a restaurant effectively for the benefit of the owners, because we can describe what the owners want objectively and quantitatively: money. The more, the better. Thus the restaurant can be accountable to its owners, as it never can to its customers. And it is this accountability, this quality of tautness, which causes it to serve its customers well. A string can be loose in many ways, but tight in only one.

[Anonymous No.17764145]

I'm going to turn into a transsexual cumpot and it's all your fault Nick Land. You and your capital.

[Anonymous No.17764187]

>>17764144

i don't know but this analogy is very weak. yes, you can never please absolutely everyone but it's a real stretch to say that a really good restaurant will always have people that think the food is truly bad. go to a really nice italian restaurant, if you don't like italian food then that doesn't mean the food is bad. just that that particular restaurant doesn't do anything for you. the food will still be good

[Anonymous No.17764224]

How to become hyperstisious?

[Anonymous No.17764247]

>>17764187
>it's a real stretch to say that a really good restaurant will always have people that think the food is truly bad.
There will always be a couple, literally always.

But anyway I don't think that's even the point, the point is that Moldbug clearly sees capitalism as a great mechanism for producing wealth.

[Anonymous No.17764279]

>>17764247

yeah i know what he's trying to say, i just think it's not the greatest analogy.

i do however think that those outliers that will maintain the food is bad, are the kind of people that shit on everything anyways and can thus be basically disregarded

[Anonymous No.17764292]

>Nick Land
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.17764368]

>>17762402
>or women pretending that they're people
lmao

>Nick Land's perception of the future is something out of BLAME!
JUST LIKE MY ANIMES GUYS!

[Anonymous No.17764388]

>>17764144
It's hard to say what you read on UR are his current views ever since he moved to substack. The restaurant analogy isn't really an argument for capitalism but rather in the intention of the people who run it and most people just think in terms of capitalism(the owners) socialism(the people).

This is him now atleast
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/socialism-and-capitalism-are-both

[Anonymous No.17764411]

>>17764388
Fuck, I should say that the analogy is more about which form of government is better at making people live fulfilled lives, eudaimonia. He talks better about it behind some of the paywalled articles

[Anonymous No.17764437]

>>17764388
>https://graymirror.substack.com/p/socialism-and-capitalism-are-both
this article is criticizing our economy for not being capitalist enough, and then proposing how to fix this situation by instituting lolbertarian financial policies, which he says can only be done by replacing the government with his neo-monarchy, which he then says is impossible at present. It's the exact same thing he was saying on UR over a decade ago.

[Anonymous No.17764525]

>>17764437
If by capitalist you mean good then sure I guess

[Anonymous No.17764573]

>>17764525
he literally mentions the Austrian school

[Anonymous No.17764618]

>>17764573
Yeah? He's also mentioned Friedrich Lisr plenty of times in UR and advocates for protectionism and economic interventionism for things like technology. What?

[Anonymous No.17764706]

>>17764618
I don't see how you can call Austrian economic policy 'not capitalism', I mean he literally says himself:

>And we are back to capitalism—or at least, a free market in capital. Yay!
>Under capitalism, the efficient market hypothesis actually holds. There is no beta, only alpha. Barring exogenous events—like a pandemic—which actually affect all assets, markets do not tend to move as a whole. No one needs to gamble to preserve capital. Speculation is only for players who have signal to add, or think they do.

His point is just that you can't expect this to happen in modern America

[Anonymous No.17764770]

>>17764706
Sure, but this clearly isn't how most people would describe capitalism, which he doesn't believe in, and when you add in the other stuff he talks about it becomes pretty dishonest to call him a basic libertarian.

[Anonymous No.17764780]

Lmao at this thread

[Anonymous No.17764786]

>>17764770
I think that is exactly how most people describe capitalism, the libertarians are popularly known for thinking capitalism is the best thing ever. The main group that define capitalism in a different way are Communists who enlarge its definition to mean a whole bunch of stuff other than the basic system.

[Anonymous No.17764805]

>>17764786
He's always been more interested in good governance from a classical perspective first and foremost. And the belief that sovereignty is always conserved doesn't fit well in the capitalist socialist dichotomy whether from a libertarian perspective or leftist. Someone has to be in charge and Moldbug wants absolute monarchy.

[Anonymous No.17764820]

>>17764780

what do you find so funny specifically? It's literally just a discussion of a philosopher, exactly what this board is for

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17764824]

nick land is literally just a liberal but with deleuzian jargon characteristics

[Anonymous No.17764827]

>>17762233
>praxis

[Anonymous No.17764864]

>>17764805
Capitalism existed under monarchies though, I think we are just talking past each other.

[Anonymous No.17764898]

>>17764864
Maybe. Do you mean feudalism when you say monarchies? Are you a marxist?

[Anonymous No.17764899]

>>17764827
why do fat people exist

[Anonymous No.17764911]

Holy fuck accfag is going insane again

[Anonymous No.17764925]

>>17764898
I mean like the English monarchy until the mid 17th century, or the French until their revolution, Prussia under Frederick the Great, and so on. He also points to Singapore as vaguely monarchical under LKY, and capitalist.

[Anonymous No.17764982]

>>17764824
>ancaps are liberals
i hope this isn't your best

[Anonymous No.17765001]

>>17764925
I guess I don't really see the importance of labelling something as capitalist when you believe that sovereignty is always conserved and the distinction between corporation and state is fairly negligable aside from the fact that the other one is sovereign so in the end all that matters is how the state is run and who runs it.

Theres also this interesting quote from GM:
>Most bad economic theories are not wrong per se. They are bounded. They are useful and valid within a certain envelope, like Newtonian physics. Outside this envelope, like Newtonian physics, they are wrong and their results are just ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.17765007]

>>17764982
all anarkiddies are libs

[Anonymous No.17765031]

>>17765001
The point is that under the capitalist system you have private enterprise as opposed to eg. completely central planning. This is why you can say China is becoming 'more capitalist' because more of their economy is private each year.

[Anonymous No.17765047]

>>17762495
slowly, and then suddenly

[Anonymous No.17765056]

>>17762644
post-leftism is not a thing

[Anonymous No.17765066]

>>17765007
I thought you had to like markets and nation states to be a liberal

[Anonymous No.17765078]

>>17765007
everybody are libs, except maybe some syndicalists in the third world

[Anonymous No.17765085]

>>17765066
that's been the job of the left for the last decades, work as the HR department of corporate capitalism, the pretending to hate it is just larping and makes it work even more smoothly

[Anonymous No.17765092]

>>17765066
nah all you have to do is disagree with me

[Anonymous No.17765120]

>>17762402
this sounds very based

[Anonymous No.17765121]

>>17765085
That describes social democrats, sure, but they're only the left in 'merica. They're the centrists in other western countries, aren't they?

[Anonymous No.17765126]

>>17765092
no but really is more about believing in idealism supporting capitalism is just the result of this idealism and it can be done even without noticing you are doing it just like >>17765085 said I dont think nick land is an idealist or ancap anyways

[Anonymous No.17765134]

>>17765031
But then again isn't the situation in china similar to what happened in Nazi germany during privatization. Yeah, they sold off industries but the buyers all happened to be members of the party. Where they really 'private' then? Some people moldbug as well have talked about making everything more formally-owned and explicit in regards to formalism but I'm not sure how that would look like.

[Anonymous No.17765143]

>>17765121
the left is doing the same in every other CIA-controlled country, which is basically every country except China and North Korea

[Anonymous No.17765148]

>>17765066
The liberal conception of property is fundamentally anarchist.

[Anonymous No.17765154]

>>17765121
yes, pumping kids full of hormones is totally ""centrist"" in europe

[Anonymous No.17765172]

>>17765126
even the russian and chinese communist revolutions arguably worked as a catalyst to quickly industrialize those countries to be utilized by technocapital, the open society is a butchered society, like a chicken ready to be eaten

[Anonymous No.17765185]

>>17765134
China is of course not merely(or even mostly) capitalist, it has a mixed form of economy, and the Nazis did as well. In reality it is always a mixed form, but the early USSR was clearly a lot less capitalist than the US in 1850 or whatever.

Moldbug's neocameralism is as far as I can tell towards the 'very capitalist' end of the spectrum, he even wants to try to incorporate capitalist structures into the actual government.

[Anonymous No.17765187]

>>17765154
yes
>>17765143
bs even in america there are radical non liberal leftists

[Anonymous No.17765195]

>>17765187
name one "radical non liberal leftist" in america

[Anonymous No.17765209]

>>17765143
Russia is definitely not controlled by the CIA, it inherited many of the USSR's tensions with USA

[Anonymous No.17765216]

>>17765148
Interesting. Can you elaborate on that point?

[Anonymous No.17765223]

>>17765209
the russian liberal left is 100% CIA controlled and financed, but maybe there are some actual old school autistic marxists there, but i doubt they get much publicity

[Anonymous No.17765245]

>>17765195
Me

[Anonymous No.17765250]

>>17765223
Yeah but Russia is not controlled by its liberal left.

[Anonymous No.17765269]

>>17765185
I think it just entirely depends on how you look at it. Moldbug doesn't so much say that we should run USG like a corporation rather than the USG IS a corporation that is being run badly, because at the end of the day a state is an orginization of a group of people, it's a decision-making process. I also fail to see moldbugs ideal society, from your definition, being capitalist when he favors state intervention to the point of ludditism and heavy protectionism to the point where wooden toys would be the norm again.

[Anonymous No.17765321]

>>17765216
I should rather say that it originates from an anarchistic conception of humanity where the individual comes from nowhere and that possession of property comes before the state and therefore doesn't need it.

[Anonymous No.17765343]

>>17764820
Nick Land is a nigger in the colloquial sense

[Anonymous No.17765361]

>>17765245
what have you done today that was "radical"?

[Anonymous No.17765378]

>>17765321
Don't Locke and Hobbes have hard-ons for the state as protector of private and personal property though? Maybe I need some review, as I was also under the impression that Anarchism was a movement towards communal holding of private property without state backed violence (whether or not that's even possible).

[Anonymous No.17765432]

>>17765378
I was more concerned with Adam Smith and Rousseou. But Locke is definately a liberal and the whole tabula rasa is just man from nothing

[Anonymous No.17765555]

>>17765432
Well I haven't read any Smith and barley any Rousseou, maybe that's why I don't understand where you're coming from.

[Anonymous No.17766138]

>>17762874
nobody cares consoomer

[Anonymous No.17766202]

>>17763407
but Land's native language is english, are you fucking retarded? monoglot mutts, not even once

[Anonymous No.17766263]

>>17762233
>bros what's the praxis
>how can I single handedly change the course of history throught my individual actions(tm)

[Anonymous No.17766315]

>>17766263
you are a smart guy

[Anonymous No.17766317]

>>17766263
They're just liberals, give them a break

[Anonymous No.17766377]

>>17762267
look closer at the picture there's a skelly

[Anonymous No.17766396]

>>17762233
It means hurry the fuck up and get on with your god damn fucking life. Use the means you have and can get so as to get from what is the case now, to what you think should be the case in the coming future.
If you really want to read more about "praxis" read marx, most postmodernists, or Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. But otherwise it's a pretentious academic term that should be discarded as philosophical confusion.

[Anonymous No.17766583]

>>17766263
>>17766317
you two have no idea what praxis is

[Anonymous No.17766708]

I am at looking at this thread and thinking, 'all of the questions these anons have will be resolved by my upcoming book which entirely redefines 'capital' to fit the modern era.' Stay tuned.

[Anonymous No.17766715]

>>17766708

can't wait anon

[Anonymous No.17766729]

Can someone turn this bot off?

[Anonymous No.17766958]

>>17762233
Isn't Land's gestalt basically the Terminator franchise. Capitalism was sent back in time to manifest itself and we have to kill skynet or something

[Anonymous No.17767418]

>>17766958
lmao yeah
>>17766729
why

[Anonymous No.17768630]

>>17762402
>women pretending that they're people
lold

[Anonymous No.17769867]

>>17766958
except Land is on the side of Skynet, not humanity

[Anonymous No.17769943]

>>17762233
It's pure cope move on to something else