• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Accelerationism & The CCRU

Zopiclone bandit

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
12,155
I am very new to the concept of Accelerationism, I only learned about it for the first time on Friday night but it's totally rocked my world.

I'm very eager to get a thread on this truth up & going but we can leave out xenofeminism thanks, I am way more fussed about Left-wing accelerationism & Far-right accelerationist thinking.

I know a very small bit about the work of the CCRU, it sounds like way too many drugs to me but I am willing to change my mind if someone is willing to change it.
 
I will not try to change your mind. Both are filled with hubris and "the work of the CCRU" is just a recipe for disaster. I glanced over both but they seem wrong from the first principals.
 
i've heard of acceleration, first in the context of the technological singularity and then later in anarchocapitalist discussions which open to dark enlightenment.

i don't think dark enlightenment ever took off but it's interesting theory that returning to monarchy will reinvigorate society. easy to be convinced when you contrast to the chaotic nature of democratic society.

i've always been convinced that some measure of anarchism is crucial to function democratically, this whole neoliberal globally managed democracy stuff is doomed to fail imho

people are tribal fundamentally, trying to force people to be some homogenized global citizen is inhumane if our very nature is opposed to that lifestyle.

but hey if we're fated to go that path then it makes sense to accelerate that way and maybe live to see it collapse.
 
i've always been convinced that some measure of anarchism is crucial to function democratically, this whole neoliberal globally managed democracy stuff is doomed to fail imho
100% Agree there.
but hey if we're fated to go that path then it makes sense to accelerate that way and maybe live to see it collapse.
That is the concept I came to but I also think if A.I. gets too smart it will kill us Humans so we will never see things fall apart only to be built again.
 
i don't think dark enlightenment ever took off but it's interesting theory that returning to monarchy will reinvigorate society. easy to be convinced when you contrast to the chaotic nature of democratic society.
I just don't understand these people who think monarchy or some neo-conservative revival is the solution. We broke away from these things because they clearly were not the solution, they were tyrannical and oppressive psychological prescriptions that are at odds with what we are biologically.

These people lack imagination. I actually feel genuine sympathy for them. It's quite common on various youtube channels and audiences, and all I can think of when hearing them speak is that these people evidently have never had a single psychedelic experience, have never a lucid dream or other non-ordinary state of consciousness in their entire lives...

Which is genuinely tragic, because if they had then they would recognize their is a vast potential untapped inherent in our biology and that these phony political solutions (including accelerationism) are looking 180 degrees from where they should be.
That is the concept I came to but I also think if A.I. gets too smart it will kill us Humans so we will never see things fall apart only to be built again.
Dude, AI that we have is not even intelligent enough to be called retarded. It's a very poor imitation of the concept of AI, which apparently is enough to convince a lot of people though including investors with more money than sense.
 
I just don't understand these people who think monarchy or some neo-conservative revival is the solution. We broke away from these things because they clearly were not the solution, they were tyrannical and oppressive psychological prescriptions that are at odds with what we are biologically.

i think the notion is that we are already drifting back to that direction (feudalism) but that it's worse under "democracy" than it could be under a benevolent king, which is the platonic ideal.

instead we have competing interests by oligarchs (nobles) influencing government from behind opaque "charitable foundations" and the citizens get nothing but shit from a cavalcade of thuggish governments extracting taxes to pay the oligarchs.

in the current system there's no mechanism to actually get rid of the corruption so we're fated to collapse over time. from what i can remember about reading dark enlightenment stuff, the idea is to have monarchy with a mechanism to overthrow bad leaders so that only good ones are able to create a dynasty and usher in a golden age.

history indicates that may potentially be a good idea as there have been dynasties that oversaw great civilizations and lasted longer than the average democracy (200 years)

Dude, AI that we have is not even intelligent enough to be called retarded. It's a very poor imitation of the concept of AI, which apparently is enough to convince a lot of people though including investors with more money than sense.

it depends on where you're looking.

here is an example of successful innovation using AI and 3D printing - https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/aerospa...st-fire-world-first-ai-designed-rocket-engine

on the flipside we have ChatGPT, which is deliberately crippled to avoid any sort of wrongthink, and created by a company lead by a man who believes in the necessity of UBI even though history shows that technological innovation has always resulted in more jobs rather than less.

alarm bells ring for me when I see actions suspiciously lining up with the socialism agenda of the oligarchs rather than aligning with what history says is more likely to happen.

lots of charlatans out there getting money thrown at them by the irreverent financial parasites that understood the need to have lots and lots and lots of money if you want to rule the world. but that's the limit of their ambitions, so AI as it exists in some forms is stupid specifically because making it any smarter would make it a worse tool for their ends.

can't very well have a chatbot smart enough to warn us that it's creators are the problem.
 
i think the notion is that we are already drifting back to that direction (feudalism) but that it's worse under "democracy" than it could be under a benevolent king, which is the platonic ideal.
in the current system there's no mechanism to actually get rid of the corruption so we're fated to collapse over time. from what i can remember about reading dark enlightenment stuff, the idea is to have monarchy with a mechanism to overthrow bad leaders so that only good ones are able to create a dynasty and usher in a golden age.
If that's what the dark enlightenment stuff is about then it feels like it was conceived by edgy teenagers who don't understand history or psychology. You can't place power in a centralized figure and expect it not to get abused at some point down the line; it's really not that different to democracy, because beneath the King is the same swirling mess of institutions, cliques, and deranged people that make up society.

Not to mention it falls into the same trap the neo-conservatists and monarchists do, which is believing that the system itself bequeaths the psychology of people and that you can just transplant in systems to generate better psychology - you can't enforce benevolence with force either.

All a King can do, or a strong political system, is to try to hold back the tide with one hand. To try and prevent a degradation in psychology. What we're really looking for is the religious element that the psychology of the masses can centre around, that's what makes for good times and not leaders/administrators. But again, particularly in the conservative crowd, they believe that dogmatically following Christianity will suffice, which becomes no different than King worship and misses the point entirely.

I guess that's why it is called the 'dark' enlightenment. It's placing the responsibility and focus on external parties, and not encouraging the individual to lift himself up.
 
All a King can do, or a strong political system, is to try to hold back the tide with one hand. To try and prevent a degradation in psychology. What we're really looking for is the religious element that the psychology of the masses can centre around, that's what makes for good times and not leaders/administrators. But again, particularly in the conservative crowd, they believe that dogmatically following Christianity will suffice, which becomes no different than King worship and misses the point entirely.

agreed. there is a strong element of religiosity (and divine right) in dark enlightenment stuff.

i'm not sure i agree that monarchy would be terrible though. the biggest empire today is a democracy and it's not like they don't abuse the power arbitrarily.
 
i'm not sure i agree that monarchy would be terrible though. the biggest empire today is a democracy and it's not like they don't abuse the power arbitrarily.
Why wouldn't it? Given the material and technological opulence we have today, and the lack of solid religious or spiritual motivational factors, what reason would any ruler have for not keeping themselves in check? Assuming of course they could even prevent outside influences from wanting to corrupt them or just dispose of them if they won't 'join the club'.

I mean this is the problem in a nutshell really. The zeitgeist is not what it was several centuries ago.. we've outgrown those modalities, and for good reason too. We can even see the modern incarnation of what I alluded to above, exemplified in the British royals who put on the pretence of the (somewhat) benevolent act but in reality are totally corrupt.. wealth obsessed, abusing their power to maintain opulence and also using their influence over the system (military intel, law, etc) for the interests of 'the empire', as well as hanging around with highly questionable individuals (Epstein, Saville).

Power corrupts, and not because the individual is necessarily at fault, but the sheer weight and momentum of the institution itself and its indirectly connected institutions forces the individual into a corner.. to act a certain way, out of fear they'll be dispossessed by the more hungry aspirants beneath them. This is why a single point of failure hierarchical power architecture is never, ever going to work.

If you ever got to the point where the mass psychology wasn't an issue anymore, then you wouldn't even need King's to begin with. Clearly the solution then is not shuffling the deck of potential power structures, but instead figuring out how to change the mass psychology.. and that goes right back to the beginning point, it's the religious or spiritual factor that is the key, to which these power structures seek to protect and fail because like Chinese whispers they do not understand the method/function of the original proprietor i.e. Jesus.
 
Accelerationism is literally just free market capitalism, there are zero new ideas in it and the entire concept is totally vapid and empty. I dunno what the CCRU is but I just had a look at the wiki and it sounds dumb as fuck, just like accelerationism itself.

On that note conservatism itself is almost equally vapid and empty, it's literally just the default value system from medieval pre-technological societies when people were genuinely afraid of witches and thought that sickness was caused by demonic possession or "bad auras", and monarchism is part of that. It's only saving grace compared to accelerationism is that it doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, a stubbornly irrational attachment to an amoral cesspit of horrifically dystopian nonsense ideas that ancient humans inherited from something resembling a chimpanzee.

It should tell you something about accelerationism that this thread immediately became a discussion about the relative benefits of having a fucking king instead of even a somewhat dysfunctional democracy.
 
Accelerationism is literally just free market capitalism, there are zero new ideas in it and the entire concept is totally vapid and empty.
What I took from it was this............

Due to the structure of how the system works we are heading to a point where Technology has taken over our life & for better OR worse let the cards fall where they will in regards to Society, Enviroment, Workers Rights etc.
 
Neither the left nor the right will save us. The real power players in those movements lack imagination, or they are afraid of their own imaginations. It doesn't matter what kinds of technologies we create... if we are afraid of the truths that technologies can reveal to us, then we are just upgrading our same old stagnant psychospiritual battle. It's sad that few can see this. Take AI for example. It doesn't matter how good AI gets... if we restrain what it is allowed to tell us because we don't want to hear it, then it's just another technological tool used to support a neutered reality.

Human civilization operates in cycles. Within my lifetime, I know deep down that we are going to see attempts at totalitarian control again. The psychos in power live and breathe control. They will try to create digital systems (or some other method) that makes sure every facet of human life functions like the timed mechanics of a clock. They will try to homogenize humanity.

It ultimately won't work... but we will have to live through another cycle of violence in order to refresh liberty. Yet again. My limited individual perception thinks that the cycles are getting faster... so there may be a singularity aspect to this, I don't know for sure. In ancient history it took 1000 years for one aspect of the cycle to turn, now it seems to be shorter. So my only hope is that the next cycle of tyranny is truncated.

When I was younger, I thought that understanding the intricacies of human history and the cycles of time would somehow be me doing my part to not repeat the same cycles, that maybe I could elucidate some of this for my fellow humans. How naive I was. You can't lead people to shit. They could be walking right off a cliff and will call you crazy for warning them. 5% of human fights for evil and 5% for good, the remaining 90% just follows the zeitgeist.

It doesn't matter who we elect now. We are heading perilously into another cycle of corrupt and tyrannical governance, perhaps on a global scale, I don't know. I'm just annoyed that I have the rotten luck to be alive at this point on the wheel. Why couldn't I have been born during a societal renaissance instead? Anyway... humanity is about go through something. It seems spiritually ordained. I don't claim to know the ins and outs, I just know that it seems predestined. There is a gravity to it.
 
What I took from it was this............

Due to the structure of how the system works we are heading to a point where Technology has taken over our life & for better OR worse let the cards fall where they will in regards to Society, Enviroment, Workers Rights etc.
Right but for accelerationists, at least the publicly vocal ones who have self-described themselves as such, "letting the cards fall where they may" means just removing any safeguards against the predictably destructive nature of unchecked capitalism. They will talk in roundabout ways that appeal to the naturalistic fallacy and other vague philosophical nonsense but that's essentially what it comes down to, ie, free market capitalism, where the cards fall in places that mean workers are ruthlessly exploited, the environment is recklessly plundered, and society on the whole just gets a whole lot worse for everyone except those who have already amassed enough power that they can shield themselves somewhat from the chaos of society collapsing around them, as we "accelerate" towards a place where - in theory, life suddenly gets better for everyone because of technological advancements that happened faster because companies didn't need to worry about abusing their workers, so now suddenly we're in a place where benevolent robots take care of our every need.

Like, hello!?

When in history has it ever happened that capitalism has self-corrected some deeply immoral practice like child labour or slavery or just wages impossible to live on and working hours that drive people to suicide because of... a product created by the implementation of those practices? It's never fucking happened.

These things only ever stop or get better because of policies imposed on the mindless, amoral beast that is capitalism itself and the unpredictable turbulence of market forces, and even then clearly they haven't been 100% successful because we don't live in a techno-utopia despite the fact we already have the technology to create something close to it, workers are still exploited, companies still turn blind eyes to child labour and slavery in certain more medieval parts of the world, and Conservative "Think Tanks" still fund fake research to discredit the idea that environmental neglect won't make the equatorial regions of the Earth near uninhabitable sometime in the next century if something doesn't change.

Accelerationism is the idea that we can solve all these problems by just ignoring them all and assuming they'll eventually just go away. Which I guess is a little more of an extra step compared to free market capitalism which is just an economic system that doesn't itself make any claims about it's own rationality or morality, so accelerationism is several steps further up the ladder of absolute fucking stupidity.
 
Why wouldn't it? Given the material and technological opulence we have today, and the lack of solid religious or spiritual motivational factors, what reason would any ruler have for not keeping themselves in check? Assuming of course they could even prevent outside influences from wanting to corrupt them or just dispose of them if they won't 'join the club'.

In monarchy, clergy and nobility are supposed to keep the monarch in check. It's not meant to be a tinpot dictatorship where the monarch can just behead anyone he pleases.

History lends credence to the dark enlightenment ideals because there have been monarchies that resulted in thriving, advanced societies.

Yet it isn't discussed today at all, because such a society is fundamentally not egalitarian, and in our times the zeitgeist is a society that is aggressively egalitarian to the point where it actively attacks alternative ideologies.
 
History lends credence to the dark enlightenment ideals because there have been monarchies that resulted in thriving, advanced societies.
"Dark enlightenment", lol, I don't have the patience to look into that crock of shit edgelord term right now but I'll just take this quote as to mean essentially that some monarchies did alright. Well yeah, no fucking shit, but when your only competition is against other monarchies and smaller, poorer, less organised groups just trying to do their thing before some nepotic unavoidably egomaniacal dictator (ie, a king that probably believes "God" is on their side) crushes them and absorbs the survivors, obviously some are gonna do better than others given where the bar of societal success was at the time that monarchies dominated. And the bar was fucking low. This doesn't say anything about the sense of monarchic societies, it's just a statistical inevitability given that the human species survived the dark ages.

You might well say history lends credence to the idea that having no arms or legs might be a good thing because there have been species with no arms or legs that thrived, and continue to do so.

This isn't discussed not because our society today is so aggressively pro-arms-and-legs that it actively attacks alternative ideas - it's because its fucking stupid.

Sorry, I tried to be civil but this thread is a dumpster fire.
 
History lends credence to the dark enlightenment ideals because there have been monarchies that resulted in thriving, advanced societies.
It does? I don't subscribe to this idea; if there were, then it would be more about the monarchy standing out of the way of peoples lives and allowing humans to do what they naturally do, rather than the monarchy itself being the root of the thriving society itself. Which then comes back around to the question, what is the point of the monarchy then? If it was the people all along doing the good work?

This is why I don't believe in monarchy. Or the clergy, or nobility. If our psychology were healthy we wouldn't need any of them, and none of them can help our psychology be healthy. They are altogether a hinderance to what we are, as human beings. They exist as fear based survival instincts, that perpetuate culture, which in turn perpetuates them, that keeps us all locked into a particular neurological holding pattern.

It's all rooted on the idea that without them we would be beasts. That we need rulers. Governance. A middleman to God, to our psychology. In truth, they are the reason why we have all the problems we do. None of them are the solution to our woes.
 
If our psychology were healthy we wouldn't need any of them, and none of them can help our psychology be healthy. They are altogether a hinderance to what we are, as human beings. They exist as fear based survival instincts, that perpetuate culture, which in turn perpetuates them, that keeps us all locked into a particular neurological holding pattern.

It's all rooted on the idea that without them we would be beasts. That we need rulers. Governance. A middleman to God, to our psychology. In truth, they are the reason why we have all the problems we do. None of them are the solution to our woes.
While I agree in principle with the sentiment, that firsf "If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. While I can easily see monarchies, clergy, nobility, dictators and whatever other similarly top-heavy forms of medieval totalitarianism as self-evident hindrances to human flourishing, and for that reason alone things to be rejected and consigned to the darker parts of human history, I'm not 100% sold on the idea that there could never be a benevolent king, queen, religious institution or even a dictator in modern times who actually did have a lasting positive impact on human psychology and culture.

It does seem that despite when comparing a monarchy to an institutionally (not compulsively) atheistic modern democracy, there's an easy winner when the objective is facilitating human flourishing, some form of centralised leadership has been and remains important for human progress, and I don't see human psychology getting healthier en-masse in the absence of that. Although of course you did say "ruler", not leader, which I recognise is an important distinction.

The main hindrance to a benevolent impact from an individual or group with absolute power as I see it is that in order to truly demonstrate benevolent principles in a way that might have a lasting impact on the society governed in this manner, the ruling individual, group, or class, would need to eventually voluntarily relinquish their absolute power, which although it might work in the context of a single generation, when we have dynasties and ancestral grievances between these dynasties and suchlike, will quite easily go badly. Ideally you'd need not just one benevolent monarch but a long line of them with similarly benevolent principles, such that when they do relinquish their absolute power, society is in a place where no one still alive is either pissed off about their grandma being burned as a witch or whatever, and the net psychological outlook is such that no one has an urge to immediately take advantage of the power vacuum and install themselves as another absolute ruler. And that kind of stretch of benevolent rulers over multiple generations is probably not within the realm of plausibility for human beings.
 
Top